ORDER Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. With consent, the petition is heard finally. 2. Non-grant of family pension to the petitioner is the cause for present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Petitioner's husband Shri Rajkumar Gupta (since deceased) after working for nearly 40 years with the Punjab National Bank retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.1988, from the post of Regional Manager. He expired on 22.9.1988. 4. That in the year 1995 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (f) of sub-Section (2) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970, the Board of Directors of Punjab National Bank after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government made the Regulations viz. Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 notified on 29.9.1995 (hereafter referred as Regulation 1995). 5. In terms of Regulation 1995 following categories of employees were covered, who- (a)- were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 but had retired before 1.11.1993. (b)- have retired on or after 1.11.1993 but before 29.9.1995. (c)- were in the service before 29.9.1995 and continue to be in service in the Bank. (d)- were in service on or after 1.11.1993 and had died after retirement but before 29.9.1995. (e)- were in service on or after 1.11.1993 but who have died while in service before 29.9.1995. (f)- were in service on or after 1.1.1986 and had died in the service on or before 31.10.1993 or had retired on or before 31.10.1993 but died before 29.9.1995. (g)- joined the service on or before 31.10.1993 and who died in service on or after 1.11.1993 but before 29.9.1995. (h)-joined the Bank on or after 29.9.1995. 6. (f)- were in service on or after 1.1.1986 and had died in the service on or before 31.10.1993 or had retired on or before 31.10.1993 but died before 29.9.1995. (g)- joined the service on or before 31.10.1993 and who died in service on or after 1.11.1993 but before 29.9.1995. (h)-joined the Bank on or after 29.9.1995. 6. These class of employees were eligible to join the Pension Scheme, subject to the fulfillment of following conditions- (a) In the case of categories of employers mentioned at (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) mentioned above, it is necessary that the employees concerned or their family members exercise an option in writing within 120 days from the notified dated (i.e. by 27.1.1996) to become member of Pension Fund and refund within Sixty days after expiry of said period of 120 days the entire amount of bank's contribution to PF and interest accrued thereon together with a simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of settlement of PF account till the date of refund of aforesaid amount to the bank. (b) In the case of category of employees mentioned at (c) above, it is necessary that they exercise option in writing within 120 days from the notified date to become member of the Pension Fund and authorize Punjab National Bank Provident Fund Trust to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank along with interest accrued thereon to the credit of Pension Fund constituted under these Regulations. (c) In the case of category of employees mentioned at (h), above, i.e. the employees who have joined the service of the bank on or after the notified date i.e. 29.9.1995, are not required to exercise option as they shall be governed by these regulations. However, the employee who joins the service of Bank on or after 29.9.1995 at the age of 35 years or more may, within a period of 90 days from the date of his appointment elect to forego his right to pension where upon the Pension Regulations shall not apply to him. 7. However, the employee who joins the service of Bank on or after 29.9.1995 at the age of 35 years or more may, within a period of 90 days from the date of his appointment elect to forego his right to pension where upon the Pension Regulations shall not apply to him. 7. The regulation further stipulated that in case of category of employees who were in the service of the Bank during any time on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 and had died while in service on or before the 31st day of October, 1993 or had retired on or before the 31st day of October 1993, but died before the notified date in which case their family shall be entitled to the pension or the family pension as the case may be under these regulations, if the family of the deceased- (a) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become 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 and interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest at the rate of six per cent annum from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Bank; or 8. That vide personnel division Circular No. 1520 dated 15.11.1995 (Annexure R/4) decision was also taken for forwarding of option, letters, forms etc: 9. Grievance of the petitioner is that though she opted for family pension vide her application dated 16.1.97, the same was turned down on 2.4.97 on the ground that the proposal was not given within stipulated time. It is contended that there was no personal information given by the Bank. It is urged that it is after knowing from different sources, she applied on 16.1.97. It is submitted that had she known that the option has to be given within 120 days from the date of notification i.e. 27.1.96, she would have applied within the stipulated time and would have complied with other conditions. Thus, as submitted on behalf of petitioner that it was want of information in time which prevented her from timely filing the application. Thus, as submitted on behalf of petitioner that it was want of information in time which prevented her from timely filing the application. Under these circumstances she claims that the respondents be directed to consider the proposal. 10. Respondents on their turn contends that wide publicity was given about the Pension Regulations as also the fact that the proposal was to be given within 120 days of notification. It is urged that the option which has to be given on or before 27.1.1996 was tendered on 16.1.1997 which was turned down as there was no provision for relaxation. The respondents in paragraph 5.5 of the return also contends that notices was sent to all the present and past employees of respondent Bank about exercising the option for the pension however, the petitioner since did not opt within time, but opted after the stipulated period, her claim was declined. It is contended that record regarding communication of information could not be produced as they have been destroyed after 3 years. Thus in substance though the respondent does not dispute the entitlement, however submit that the petitioner having not applied within the stipulated time, but thereafter, her claim for pension was rejected. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the question which crops up for consideration is as to whether the respondents are justified in rejecting an otherwise legitimate claim of the petitioner for family pension on the ground that she applied after the expiry of cut of date. 12. True it is that Regulation 1995 lays down a condition that the option has to be exercised within 120 days. But equally true it would be in respect of the class of persons like the petitioner that they have no relations left with the Bank in capacity as an employer and since the Regulation Scheme was brought into existence after about seven years from the date of death of the petitioner's husband, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have ensured that the individuals who could be benefited from the Regulation are personally made Known of the Regulations and the stipulations therein. No efforts in that direction seems to have been made by the respondents. Merely by saying that they had informed by letters, the record whereof has been destroyed after three years, is not a sufficient proof that information was sent to the petitioner. No efforts in that direction seems to have been made by the respondents. Merely by saying that they had informed by letters, the record whereof has been destroyed after three years, is not a sufficient proof that information was sent to the petitioner. No inference in absence of cogent material can be drawn against the claimant petitioner. 13. Why should a person who is to be benefited, life long of the provisions would cause delay in availing such benefits? is a question which stares at the submissions of respondents. Therefore, in absence of cogent material on record, the respondents' contention that the information was sent cannot be accepted. Consequently, it is to be observed that the petitioner had no information about coming in vogue of Pension Regulations. True it is that the petition has been filed in the year 2004, however, the same will not deprive the petitioner of her legitimate right though the petitioner may not get the interest on the arrears for the said period. 14. Therefore, in the given facts of this case, it is ordered that in case the petitioner fulfills the entire formalities as stipulated in the Regulation 1995 within three months from the date of communication of this order, the respondents shall sanction the family pension and the arrears thereon be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month thereof. The petitioner will however, be not entitled for the interest on the arrears in the peculiar facts of this case. 15. The petition is allowed, to the extent above. No costs.