SHYAM BIHARI RAI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions have been taken up for final disposal at this stage itself with the consent of parties. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Punjab National Bank (Bank).

(2.) The dispute, in the present case, is whether the petitioners have validly deposited pension option forms and consequently whether they are entitled to receive pension upon their superannuation from the respondent-Bank. It appears that earlier Bank, which is a nationalized Bank, did not have a Pension Scheme for its employees. Pursuant to a settlement arrived in furtherance of an industrial dispute, Bank set out modalities under which an employee who was to retire, an employee who had retired, could give an option indicating his intention to receive pension consequent to his superannuation. He was, accordingly, required to file an option form within the time stipulated and in the manner stipulated. He was, thereafter, required to refund the amount of employer's and partly employee's contribution to the CPF and some other payment within stipulated time. Upon completion of these two basic formalities, the option of pension would be fructified. Essentially, the dispute in the two writ petitions is whether petitioners had complied with their part of the responsibility.

(3.) In relation to Shyam Bihari Rai, the only petitioner in the first writ petition being CWJC No 5629 of 2011, it is not in dispute that as per the relevant Circular, the petitioner, who had retired on 31.05.2010 that is after the date of Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated 27.04.2010, he was required to file his option form in Annexure "1A". It is not in dispute that he submitted the said form at the Boring Road Branch of Bank, Patna from where he had superannuated. This form was undisputedly submitted on 30.08.2010. These facts are not disputed in the counter affidavit. What is disputed in the counter affidavit is that as per the notified scheme, he had to submit it in between 27.08.2010 to 25.10.2010 through HRMS (Human Resource Management System). The stand in the counter affidavit is that he had not so done and, accordingly, nothing further was required to be done by the Bank and he cannot claim pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner first points out to Clause 4 (i) of the Circular No 8 of 2010 dated 16th August, 2010 issued by the Bank which is Annexure A to the Bank's counter affidavit. That clearly stipulates that so far as petitioner is concerned having retired after 27.04.2010, he was required to submit his option in terms of Annexure "1A". He draws attention of this Court to Annexure 4 to the writ petition being option form submitted by the petitioner which is in the prescribed form Annexure "1A". He then draws attention of this Court to Clause 4 (iii) of the said Circular which, in clear and unambiguous terms, states that persons who have retired can approach any nearest Branch of Bank for submitting the option form. One copy the Branch would retain, one copy the Branch would endorse receipt and return to the depositor and the rest three copies the Branch would forward as stipulated in that paragraph. Petitioner states that it is undisputed that the petitioner was retired employee who retired from Boring Road Branch of the Bank. He, accordingly, submitted the form at Boring Road Branch which is not in dispute and it was submitted within time. Petitioner, thus, takes a stand that he had completed the formalities at his end.