Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 982 (PAT)

Chandrika Tiwary v. Punjab National Bank

2014-09-11

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2014
ORDER : Petitioner was a Peon- cum-Guard in Punjab Nation 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 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. 5. The stand of the petitioner is that there is adequate material available, which is a pointer towards the fact that the petitioner was an optee for pension scheme or else his name would not have figured to some of the PF documents annexed with the writ application. He also pleads that in Annexure- 12 claim of this petitioner along with Laxmi Narayan appears. Laxmi Narayan has been given the benefit of pension scheme, petitioner has not been, which is a clear case of discrimination. 6. The respondent Bank however, has filed a detailed counter affidavit taking a plea that this is a mischievous kind of writ application, which is misconceived and devoid of any merit since it suffers from vice of misrepresentation and suppression of facts. They take a stand that there is no clear evidence to show that the petitioner ever exercised option for pension under the scheme because the Bank had made complete search of all the documents and also demanded proof thereof from the petitioner, which never came to be furnished. Whatever evidence or proof, which the petitioner has annexed are flimsy and sketchy materials managed at the branch. In addition to that since there were large number of employees, who became optees while the data was being processed either through mischief or omission claim of the petitioner was shown in a few initial documents. But there is nothing else to corroborate Annexure- 4 or that position continued to be indicated subsequently. In addition to that since there were large number of employees, who became optees while the data was being processed either through mischief or omission claim of the petitioner was shown in a few initial documents. But there is nothing else to corroborate Annexure- 4 or that position continued to be indicated subsequently. In fact, right thereafter claim of the petitioner did not figure in Annexure- 5, for which he raised a protest. 7. Even if the stand of the petitioner is taken on the face value, he was required to exercise his option on or before 30.9.1994, which was not done. It is his statement that he opted for the pension scheme only on 29.11.1994 and for that also he has no evidence or proof. The above evidence or proof was neither placed before the Bank nor is it being produced before this Court. Only circumstantial evidence is being pressed into service. The respondent Bank have explained the position in quite a detail in paragraphs 7, 10 and 13 of the counter affidavit, which seems to be a complete answer to the claim of the petitioner as well as his entitlement. They also take a stand that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7682 of 2009, decided on 20.11.2009 has held that there is no discretion left in a Bank to accept a belated application. A copy of the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court is Annexure- 3 to the counter affidavit. 8. In totality of things, therefore, there is no clear and categorical evidence to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was an optee at all under the pension scheme. Whatever has been asserted in the writ application is only an effort by the petitioner to derive benefit of pension after retirement after he had already accepted all his dues from the Bank in terms of his entitlement related to him. The writ is only an after thought. The Court is not satisfied with the documents annexed that a case fair and square is made out by the petitioner of having opted for the pension scheme. 9. The writ is only an after thought. The Court is not satisfied with the documents annexed that a case fair and square is made out by the petitioner of having opted for the pension scheme. 9. In view of the above and in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Bank cannot be directed now to treat the petitioner to be an optee in absence of any application of the petitioner being available with the Bank or failure of the petitioner to produce one either before the Bank or this Court. 10. Writ application, therefore, has no merit and it is dismissed.