Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1289 (DEL)

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK v. CHAMELI DEVI

2006-08-03

MUKUL MUDGAL, S.MURLIDHER RAO

body2006
MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19. 2. 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition (C)3789/2001 whereby appellant was directed to bring over the respondent herein, to the pension scheme and give her all the benefits accrued therefrom by taking a decision in that regard within four weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The respondent is aged over 80 years and the widow of an erstwhile employee who retired as Head Cashier from the services of appellant-bank on 31. 12. 1989. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, held as follows:"counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and willing to refund the bank's contribution to the provident fund with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It is also pointed out by him that the petitioner was not aware of the legal intricacies and the formalities to be complied with by the petitioner till the same were pointed out by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. In my considered opinion the equitable principles are also applicable to the facts of the present case for it cannot be expected of a widow, who is barely literate, to know and ascertain about the formalities to be complied with and the legal intricacies which are laid down under the aforesaid regulations till the same is brought to her notice. In that view of the matter, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to bring over the petitioner to the pension scheme and give her all the benefits accrued therefrom by taking a decision within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to refund the bank's contribution to the provident fund with interest at the rate of 6% per annum as is required to be done under the provisions of the Regulation within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the present order is made in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and this order shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case. " ( 3 ) MR. It is, however, made clear that the present order is made in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and this order shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case. " ( 3 ) MR. Jagat Arora, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that although the learned Single Judge has clarified that the impugned judgment will not constitute a precedent, the appellant was apprehensive that the impugned judgment, by implication, requires the appellant to inform each and every erstwhile employee and his/her dependents of the 1995 Pension Regulations. He submitted that since these regulations were gazetted, there was no need to separately inform each erstwhile employee of the same. In this context, he sought to rely on certain observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh B, Chauhan v. Punjab national Bank and Others, V (2005) SLT 450=2005 (106) FLR 814, which dealt with these very pension regulations. ( 4 ) WE are of the view that the apprehension expressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is unfounded. The learned Single Judge has confined the impugned judgment to the facts of the case. Further, considering that the respondent is aged over 80 years, the decision has been directed not to be treated as a precedent. Accordingly, there no grounds are made out for interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge. ( 5 ) THE amount payable to the respondent herein has been deposited by the appellant in this Court pursuant to an order dated 9. 11. 2005 passed by this Court. Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent being aged, infirm and frail, is unable to come to this Court to withdraw the amount. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the respondent who is aged over 80 years is unable to come to this Court to withdraw the amount, ve direct that as a special case, the Deputy Registrar (Accounts) will have the opposited amount released to the respondent by way of a cheque and personally hand it over to the respondent. The Deputy Registrar shall be accompanied by Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent who will bear the transportation charges. The amount shall be paid to the respondent not later than 31. 8. 2006. The Deputy Registrar shall be accompanied by Mr. Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent who will bear the transportation charges. The amount shall be paid to the respondent not later than 31. 8. 2006. As regards any amount that may be liable to be paid by the respondent in terms of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the same may be recovered by way of adjustment in the future pension payments. With these observations, this appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.