GAURI SHANKAR TIWARY Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is unfortunate that this Court has to record the present order in a never ending story of a never -ending litigation even after the litigation was terminal when the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition.

(2.) There appears to be some vehemence with which the matter is being presented to the Court, thus, leaving the Court with no option but to reiterate the record of the litigation and this Court will do it by taking recourse to the orders which are on record.

(3.) The first writ petition had been filed by the petitioner at the Ranchi Bench as the High Court then stood. That was C.W. J.C. No. 2410 of 1996(R). The order as had been passed by the Ranchi Bench on 21.12.1996 reproduced: In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 19th February, 1996 passed by the respondent No. 4 Chief Manager State Bank of India whereby the request made by the petitioner for showing the agreement relating to terms and conditions of amalgamation of the Bihar Bank with the State Bank of India. A further prayer has been made for arrears of life time pension from 6.4.1971 to 4.11.1975 which was payable to the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner was an employee of the Bank of Bihar which was amalgamated with the State Bank of India in November 1969 with a condition that all existing employees of the then Bank of Bihar would get the same and similar benefits as of the employee of the State Bank of India and the services rendered in the Bank of Bihar would be taken into consideration and counted for the payment of pension to the employees of Bihar. The father of the petitioner superannuated from the service of State Bank of India (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'SBI') with effect from 4th June, 1971 but his pension was not paid. The father of the petitioner ultimately died on 4th November, 1975 but during his life time, pension was not paid to him, though he was entitled to pension for the period 4.6.1971 to 4.11.1975. After the death of the petitioner's father, his mother was entitled to get family pension and her pension was fixed and she was paid family pension sanctioned by the Managing Director on behalf of the Trustees of Pension Fund on 15th April, 1993. A copy of the sanction order is Annexure 2 to the writ application. Petitioner's further case was that the mother of the petitioner filed a representation before the Assistant General Manager (Pension), S.B.I., Local Head Office. Patna for payment of life time pension of her husband on 8.7.1992. She filed another representation before the Regional Office of Reserve Bank of India, Bombay on 27.7.1993 and the said representation/complaint was forwarded to the respondent No. 5 Joint Chief Officer, Department Banking Operation and Development, Reserve Bank of India. However, the respondent No. 6 informed the mother of the petitioner that the matter regarding payment of pension to her husband for the period 3.6.1971 to 4.11.1975 was being examined by them and he assured to settle that the matter expeditiously . The said information was given to the mother of the petitioner vide letter dated 9.12.1993 which he Annexure 5 to the writ application. However, the mother of the petitioner died on 25th January, 1994 without getting the arrears of life time pension of her husband. The petitioner further stated that after death of his mother he made several representations. However, on 2nd December, 1993, the respondent No. 3 Assistant General Manager (Pension). Local Head Office, S.B.I. Patna issued a letter to the mother of the petitioner to receive the arrears of life time pension of her husband for the period 4.6.1971 to 4.11. 1975 amounting to Rs. 17,000/ - and odd. A copy of the said letter is Annexure 8 to the writ application. Since the mother of the petitioner died and the petitioner is the only heir of her mother, he filed representation for payment of compound interest on the arrear of life -time pension but the respondent did not take any step for payment of the said amount together with interest. The petitioner then filed a writ application being CWJC No. 704 of 1995(R) which was disposed of on 11.8.1995 whereby the respondent No. 4 was directed to consider ail the points raised in the representation and pass appropriate order. Then, the petitioner filed representation on 18.1.1996 before respondent No. 4 for passing appropriate order. The petitioner pursuant to the notice issued by the respondent No. 4 appeared before him and requested him to show the copy of agreement signed by the S.B.I. Officers containing the terms and conditions of amalgamation of Bihar Bank with the S.B.I., but the respondent No. 4 rejected the request of the petitioner and in arbitrary manner rejected the representation. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of State Bank of India taking various stands and stating that the claim of the petitioner was not sustainable and -the impugned order was passed by the respondent in accordance with law. I have heard Mr. M.P. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent -Bank. I have also perused the impugned order dated 19th February, 1996 (Annexure 2).From perusal of the said order it appears that the respondent authorities have considered the representation of the petitioner in detail and . came to a finding that the petitioner was entitled to get arrears of life time pension of his father which comes to Rs. 17,824/ -. It was held by the authorities that the aforesaid amount was not payable but purely on compassionate ground the respondent -Bank agreed to pay the said amount. By the said order, the prayer made by the petitioner for payment of compound interest or any simple interest on the said benefit was rejected. The petitioner was, therefore directed to collect the said amount of Rs. 17,824/ -. After having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. Admittedly, the petitioner's father who was employee did not claim any pension after his retirement till his death. It was only after his death his widow made a claim and the respondent -Bank agreed to pay the aforesaid amount as family pension but by the time the amount could have been paid, she died. Even after her death the respondent -Bank agreed to pay the said amount to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the claim of the petitioner for payment of compound interest is not justified. 1., therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of life -time pension amounting to Rs. 17,824.17 to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.