JAGJIT SINGH SHEKHON Vs. CANARA BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 04.05.2016 by which request of the petitioner for joining the pension scheme of the Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "bank") at the belated stage has been rejected.

(2.) In short, the petitioner joined the services of the bank on 18.08.1973 as Clerk, took voluntary retirement and was relieved from the bank on 31.03.2001. The pension scheme was introduced in the banking industry in lieu of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). The Canara Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations") came into being on 29.09.1995 and at that time, the petitioner was in service of the bank. After formulating the pension scheme, the option was circulated to the employees of the bank but the petitioner opted for the CPF and did not joint the pension scheme on his own volition. A Joint Note/Memorandum of Settlement was entered between the Indian Banks' Association and the Workmen Unions & Officers' Association respectively on 27.04.2010 to extend another option to join the pension scheme within the stipulated time. After signing the settlement, the Indian Banks' Association made publication in various newspapers on 17th/18th Aug., 2010, bringing to the notice of the all retired employees regarding extension of another option to join the pension scheme. Not only that, the bank issued Circular No.297/2010 dated 21.08.2010 and necessary information was displayed on the notice board of all its branches/offices for information of all the retired employees of the bank. The bank also issued separate publication to all concerned regarding the factum of extension of another option to join the pension scheme and also displayed the relevant information on its website, mentioning that the last date for submitting the option was 19.10.2010. Thus, in terms of the Industry Level Settlement dated 27.04.2010, the bank had given 60 days time to submit option to all those eligible to join the pension scheme and, thereafter, the scheme was closed.

(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner neither exercised his option either in 1995 or in 2010 and has rather made the application on 06.02.2015, almost after 5 years of the closure of the scheme in the year 2010, for the purpose of joining the pension scheme. It was alleged in the application that the petitioner was hospitalized in the year 2009-2010 due to severe Hepatitis-C and it was incumbent upon the bank to inform the petitioner, who had retired in the year 2001, much prior to 27.04.2010, and has no communication with the bank after having retired and his application has been erroneously and illegally rejected on the ground that it is highly belated.