(1.) The appellant-Bank appears to be acting unreasonably towards its employee. An employee, who had served the Bank for a period of 25 years with honesty and sincerity is still fighting to grant his rightful dues of pension in terms of the scheme itself introduced by the Bank. Having failed before two layers of judicial hierarchy, the Bank has come up before this Court. A poor employee is no match before the financial might of the Bank and would have to stretch his resources to defend this onslaught,
(2.) The facts, noticed in brief, would reveal so. Respondent plaintiff, being an ex-serviceman, served with the Bank as an Armed Guard, from 30.6.1991 till he retired on 1.6.1991. He was paid gratuity and contributory provident fund as per the Rules.
(3.) Subsequently, the Bank introduced a pension scheme. The respondent-plaintiff had to file a suit to get his pension, which was denied to him, though he was entitled to the same as per the Scheme. The suit filed was decreed on 9.8.1988, against which the Bank filed an appeal and the suit was dismissed. Subsequently, the Bank again itself issued circular on 6.9.1994, regarding proposed pension regulations named Allahabad Bank Employees Regulation, 1993. All employees retired after 1.1.1986, were held eligible for pension subject to refund of share of contributory fund with the interest @ 6% from the date of receipt of intimation from the Bank (emphasis mine). The respondent-plaintiff was given an option to avail this benefit if he was ready to deposit the contributory fund with interest. Still, further the Bank introduced the Regulations known as Allahabad Bank (Employees) Regulations, 1995 on 16.11.1995 and the employees who had retired after 1.1.1986 were offered the benefit of pension with certain terms and conditions and subject to filing option within 120 days i.e. till 22.1.1996. Respondent-plaintiff approached the Bank through various representations but the Bank failed to grant the pension. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff filed the present suit for mandatory injunction.