LAWS(CAL)-2007-4-40

SHIBENDRA MOHAN KUSHARI Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

Decided On April 12, 2007
SHIBENDRA MOHAN KUSHARI Appellant
V/S
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) THE appellant/writ petitioner moved the writ application seeking relief of payment of retirement benefits under the pension scheme as introduced by the respondent Bank in terms of the Regulation called as "central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995" by accepting the option of such change from contributory provident fund scheme to the pension Scheme as introduced by considering the refund issue of employer's contribution and the interest thereof in terms of the said regulation 3 (9) on applying the provision of netting that is provision of adjustment of the said amount from the commuted value of pension in terms of the notification of the Bank itself dated March 24, 1995.

(3.) THE learned Trial Judge rejected the writ application on the ground that the option was not rightly exercised as employer's contribution along with the interest thereof in terms of contributory provident fund was not refunded. The learned Trial Judge has not addressed the issue about the adjustment of the said amount from the commuted value of pension and refund of the amount, if any, is possible in terms of the provision of netting as introduced by the concerned Bank in terms of their circular dated March 24,1995 as well as in terms of the earlier decision of the Small committee on Pension held on March 26, 1994 read with the clarification of queries as made by the Indian Bank Association with reference to the Question No. 5 as formulated thereof on that issue. Before us the appellant filed an application praying for consideration of additional fact that other seven employees identically placed like the petitioner got the benefit of netting that is adjustment of refund of contributory provident fund with commuted value of pension. The Bank/respondent has filed an affidavit answering the issue. But unfortunately the Bank by affirming an affidavit by one Shri Satish Vasant Bhisa who is holding the post of Assistant General Manager of respondent No. 1 has not answered the issue straightway. In the affidavit neither was any denial that seven employees identically placed with the writ petitioner/appellant was benefited. Only plea has been taken that before the Appeal court such fact cannot be agitated and as the records were not available the appropriate answer could not be advanced. We will deal with that affidavit later on.