Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 210 (PAT)

Parvati Devi v. Chairman, UCO Bank

2005-02-24

body2005
ORDER 1. This appeal is barred by limitation. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the limitation petition, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2004 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the prayer of the appellant to allow her option of family pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund has been rejected. 4. Admitted fact is that the husband of the appellant Bibhisan Prasad was Armed Guard (Class IV Post) in the respondent Bank and joined the same on 26.12.1973. He died on 28.4.1995 leaving behind his widow, two sons and two daughters. It is an admitted fact that at the time of appointment of the deceased employee the scheme which was in force in the Bank was Contributory Provident Fund. Later on, the Bank by circular dated 27.5.1994 introduced UCO Bank Employees (Pension) Regulation, 1993 which authorised the retired and serving employees to give option for pension in place of Contributory Provident Fund. However, the said Scheme was provisional subject to approval by the Central Government. Modified scheme was issued by the Central Government known as "UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 which came into force on 29.9.1995 when it was published in the gazette. It is also an admitted position that the appellant received entire proceeds of Contributory Provident Fund on 14.11.1996. So far filing of application for option of family pension is concerned, while the provisional scheme was in force admittedly the deceased employee had applied and after the new scheme came into force, the appellant had also applied but that was applied on 5.8.1997. Filing of second option by the appellant was admittedly beyond the period as prescribed in 1995 Regulation. . 5. The question for consideration is as to whether the earlier option given by the husband of the appellant will be valid for the purpose of claiming pension in view of the provisions contained under Regulation 1995. In this regard, Rules 8 and 9 are relevant to be quoted which are as follows:- 8. . 5. The question for consideration is as to whether the earlier option given by the husband of the appellant will be valid for the purpose of claiming pension in view of the provisions contained under Regulation 1995. In this regard, Rules 8 and 9 are relevant to be quoted which are as follows:- 8. Joined the service of the Bank on or before the 31st day of October, 1993 and who died while in service on or after the 1st day of November, 1993, but before the notified date in which case their families shall be entitled to family pension under these regulations if the family of the deceased employee,- (a) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become a member of the Fund; and (b) refund within sixty days of the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (a) above the entire amount of the Bank's contribution to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account of the employee till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Bank. (9) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulations (1), (2), (5) and (8) an option exercised before the notified date by an employee or the family of a deceased employee in pursuance of the settlement shall be deemed to be an option for the purpose of this Chapter if such an employee or the family of deceased employee refund within sixty days from the notified date, the amount of the Bank's contribution to the Provident fund including interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and in case employer's contribution of Provident Fund has not been received from Provident Fund trust, has authorised or authorises within sixty days from the notified date the trustees of the Provident Fund of the Bank to transfer the entire contributions of the Bank to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter to the credit of the Fund constituted for this purpose under Regulation 5. 6. 6. According to Rule 8 of the Regulation, those employees who joined the service of the Bank on or before the 31st day of October, 1993 but before the notified date in which case their families shall be entitled to family pension under these regulations if the family of the deceased employee exercises an option in writing within the period as specified therein. Admittedly, the appellant had not applied within the said period and as such Rule 8 does not help the case of the appellant. However, Rule 9 helps the case of the appellant for the simple reason that it contains non-obstante clause and provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulations (1), (2), (3) and (8) an option exercised before the notified date by an employee or the family of a deceased employee In pursuance of the settlement shall be deemed to be an option for the purpose of this Chapter if such an employee or the family of deceased employee refund within sixty days from the notified date, the amount of the Bank's contribution to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest and in case employer's contribution of Provident Fund has not been received from Provident Fund Trust has authorised or authorises within sixty days from the notified date the trustees of the Provident Fund of the Bank to transfer the entire contributions of the bank to the Provident Fund including interest accrued thereon in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter to the credit of the Fund constituted for this purpose under Regulation 5. Admittedly, in this case the deceased employee had already applied for family pension in terms of the earlier regulation of 1993 and it is also clear from the application filed by the deceased husband of the appellant that the deceased employee had made request that the Bank's contribution of the Provident Fund should be transferred to the pension fund. Admittedly, in this case the deceased employee had already applied for family pension in terms of the earlier regulation of 1993 and it is also clear from the application filed by the deceased husband of the appellant that the deceased employee had made request that the Bank's contribution of the Provident Fund should be transferred to the pension fund. Thus, though the appellant, after the new regulation came into force, had not complied with second part of rule 9, but as the deceased employee had already made such request, in our view, there is no violation of Rule 9 and it will be treated that there was compliance of Rule 9 of the Regulation and as such the appellant is entitled to the benefit of family pension scheme and the view taken by the learned single Judge does not appear to be correct one. 7. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is directed to refund the amount of benefit taken under Contributory Provident Fund Scheme alongwith simple interest as permissible till the date of deposit within three months from today and thereafter the Bank shall give the benefit to the appellant in terms of the Regulation of 1995. 8. In the result, this appeal is allowed.