ALLAHABAD BANK Vs. SANJIT KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the abovementioned appeals were taken up together as the points involved therein are to some extent similar. We, however, propose to dispose of these appeals by delivering separate judgments, one after the other. This appeal is at the instance of the Respondent/Bank in a writapplication filed by a former employee thereof and is directed against order dated 30th January, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed the writ-application by giving liberty to the writ-petitioner to submit a representation ventilating all his grievance after offering to refund 50% of the employer's share of provident fund together with interest thereon, with further direction upon the Chairman of the Bank to consider the said representation in accordance with the rules in the light of the observations made in the body of the order and to take appropriate action by granting pension to the petitioner under the Pension Scheme, 1995. His Lordship further directed that the entire process should be completed within three months from the date of communication of the order and receipt of the representation. Being dissatisfied, the Bank has come up with the present mandamus appeal.

(2.) The case made out by the writ-petitioner was that he joined Allahabad Bank as Clerk on 27th May, 1970 and got promotion to the post of officer prior to July, 1979. According to the writ-petitioner, on 16th November, 1995 the Bank intimated all the existing employees to submit their option by 27th January, 1996 under the scheme and the writ-petitioner opted for monthly pension scheme. The writ-petitioner contended that in view of the submission of option-form within the extended time, he was entitled to get the benefit of pension on his voluntary superannuation with effect from 30th April, 2001. According to the writ-petitioner, in spite of repeated demands, the Bank has not released his pension under the scheme of 1995.

(3.) The writ-application was opposed by the Bank by filing affidavit-inopposition wherein it was denied that the writ-petitioner filed any option pursuant to Pension Regulation 1995. According to the Bank, the writ-petitioner was regularly served with his Provident Fund Statements half-yearly for a long period wherein the employer's contribution and employee's contribution were shown to the credit of the writ-petitioner but at no point of time, the writpetitioner ever raised any objection indicating that he opted for monthly pension under the scheme of the year 1995. The Bank asserted that after taking voluntary retirement from the service with effect from 30th April, 2001 the amount of Contributory Provident Fund of Rs.6,96,830.06p. and Gratuity of Rs.3,41,423/- had been paid to the writ-petitioner by treating him as a holder of Contributory Provident Fund option and the writ-petitioner duly accepted the said amount. After the lapse of four years five months from acceptance of the said amount, he had filed the writ-application. The Bank Authority further stated that the full retiral benefit, namely, the amount of Gratuity, Provident Fund, and Ex gratia amount of leave encashment etc. were credited to the Bank Account of the writ-petitioner and the amount was appropriated. The Bank, thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ-application.