RAUNKI LAL Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the respondent-bank as Peon/Daftri at Amritsar and retired on 30.06.2004 on attaining the age of 60 years. In the year 2005 he suffered chronic depression and was under continuous treatment for a period of six years. In December, 2010 the son of the petitioner came to know that there is a pension scheme for the employees of the Punjab National Bank and went to the office of the respondent-bank at Amritsar as to why his father was not getting pension. He was told that since the scheme was floated in August 2010, the last date for giving option was over and, therefore, nothing could be done to grant him pension. When he asked why his father was not made aware of the scheme he was informed that the pension scheme and its closing date were published in the newspaper. The son of the petitioner requested the Regional Manager of the respondent-bank at Amritsar branch to grant pension to his father since his condition was awful but he was sent back with an assurance that they would do something. Thereafter the son of the petitioner has sent various representations, reminders etc. through e-mail and the Customer Care Centre of the respondent bank vide e-mail dated 09.02.2011 asked the authorities to look into the matter urgently with a copy to the son of the petitioner but nothing was done. Ultimately on 24.02.2012 the petitioner received a letter from the Assistant General Manager, Circle Office, Mcleod Road, Amritsar through speed post informing him that since he did not exercise his option for pension within a stipulated period between 27.08.2010 to 25.10.2010, therefore, his request cannot be considered. When nothing was done by the respondent-bank despite repeated reminders the petitioner was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure P-10) on it but no decision has been taken thereon as yet. The petitioner has further averred that his case is fully covered by the PF and Pension Circular No. 8/10 dated 16.08.2010(Annexure P-12). On 27.4.2010, 9th Bi-Partite Settlement took place between the Indian Banks Association and the representatives of Employees Unions and Officers Association to opt for the pension scheme. Option was also given to previously retired employees to switch over pension plan if they wanted within two months of the date of offer i.e. from 27.08.2010 to 25.10.2010.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is not a case where the petitioner failed to exercise the pension option after being informed by the bank but it is a case where the petitioner was not at all informed by the bank with regard to exercising the pension option which is otherwise the requirement of law and cannot be ignored. He has argued that the action of the respondents in not granting pension to the petitioner on the ground that he did not opt for the same within the stipulated period is highly discriminatory.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that this hyper-technical defence does not lie in the mouth of the respondent-bank more particularly in view of para 10 of the memorandum of settlement, which is quoted herein below:--