SARDAR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by petitioner Sardar Singh, inter -alia, with prayer that the communication dated 16.05.2012 (Annexure -11) sent to the petitioner by Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank in its Provident Fund and Pension Department, Head Office, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, declining to accept his option switching over to the pension scheme in lieu of provident fund scheme, may be set aside and respondents be directed to give him benefit of pension scheme on his depositing back the amount of provident fund with the respondent Bank.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed on the post of Guard with respondent Bank on 10.09.1986. On attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner retired from the services of the Bank on 31.01.2008. Petitioner was member of the Provident Fund Scheme, number of his provident fund account being PF Account No. 74652. As per the Banking Employees Service Regulation and IX Bipartite Settlement and joint note dated 27.04.2010 the respondent Bank extended benefit of pension to its employees in lieu of the provident fund for which options were invited from eligible persons. The PF and Pension Fund Department of the respondent Bank vide Circular dated 21.09.2010 issued notification for submission and approval of pension option. It also made its branch offices responsible for sending option with complete documents and after checking the correct information and the amount etc. It was thereafter that vide Circular dated 24.06.2011 another option in terms of IX Bipartite Settlement was asked from the employees within sixty days.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that when nothing was done, petitioner again submitted representation on 07.05.2012 reiterating his request to the General Manager, HRD of the respondent Bank. Respondents however vide letter dated 16.05.2012 informed that it has rejected the representation of the petitioner and conveyed that his option has been rejected. In doing so, respondents Bank acted in most arbitrary and unreasonable manner. It is argued that petitioner has therefore served a notice for demand of justice and thereafter filed present writ petition.