CHANDRIKA TIWARY Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was a Peon-cum-Guard in Punjab National Bank. He joined the said Branch on 2.6.1986. He is aggrieved by the communication dated 21.8.2010, issued by the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Pension and PF Department, New Delhi, by virtue of which claim of the petitioner for payment of regular pension stands rejected on the ground that he was a non-pension optee. He not only wants quashing of the above communication but also a direction upon the respondents to treat his case to be of a pension optee as also treat him at par with some of the similarly placed employees. Short facts are that on 27.6.1984 a draft proposal of a pension scheme was introduced by the Bank for its employees. They could switch over to the pension scheme in terms of the provisions contained in Annexure-1. It is petitioner's case that on 29.11.1994, he submitted his option letter for pension through Branch Manager addressed to the Regional Office of Patna Circle.

(2.) On 15.11.1995, the above scheme was finally approved with a rider. Those who had already exercised their option need not send any fresh option letter. The last date for exercising option was fixed as 27.1.1996, which was shifted from the initial date of 30.9.1994.

(3.) According to the petitioner, Annexure-12 is the evidence, which was a communication issued by the Branch Manager addressed to the Provident Fund Department of the Punjab National Bank that one Sri Laxmi Narayan and the petitioner had opted for pension as per draft pension scheme, which corroborates the stand of the petitioner that he was a pension optee. Laxmi Narayan has been given pension. Petitioner has been refused. A few PF statements have also been annexed as Annexure-4 to show or create a circumstance that the petitioner did exercise his option. Annexure-4 related to the period April 1996 to September 1996. However, in Annexure-5, the claim of the petitioner did not figure, which compelled him to raise objection before the PF Department of the Head Office. Recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner by the Branch Manager to include his name. Yet another reminder was given in terms of Annexure-7 to which the Chief General Manager, New Delhi wrote to the Regional Manager informing that the original option letter is not available on records and if there was one available at the Regional Office level, it should be made available or the petitioner should submit proof of the option letter for pension. After all the deliberations finally the communication contained in Annexure-13, dated 21.8.2010 rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been communicated, which has been challenged.