Letters Patent Appeal No. 1795 of 2011 · Patna High Court · 2011
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1795 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4256 of 2011 With Interlocutory Application No.8106 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1795 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. The Punjab National Bank through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director having its Head Office At 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 3. The Chief Manager Punjab National Bank, P.F. & Pension Department, Rajendra Bhawan, New Delhi -8 4. The Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Patna Circle, R Block, Chanakya Place, Patna 5. The Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank, P.F. & Pension Department, Rajendra Bhawan, New Delhi-8 6. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sadisopur, Patna .... .... Respondents-Appellants Versus Sushma Kumari W/o Late Mahesh Prasad R/o Village- Salempur, P.S.- Nagarnausa, District-Nalanda ====================================================== .... .... Petitioner-Respondent Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellants : Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Maruth Nath Roy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH 2 Patna High Court LPA No.1795 of 2011 (6) dt.21-11-2013 2 / 5 ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6. 21-11-2013 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the respondent Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) against the judgment and order dated 12th July 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 4256 of 2011. The respondent-writ petitioner is the widow of one Mahesh Kumar, an employee of the Bank in its Sadisopur Branch, Patna. The said Mahesh Prasad while in service died in 2005. Since his death, the petitioner received the terminal benefits including the amount of contributory fund. Pursuant to a settlement with the employees dated 27th April 2010, under Circular dated 16th August 2010, the Bank has introduced a scheme for Provident Fund and the Pension in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The said Scheme has been made effective from 29th September 1995. In other words, those bank employees who were in service on 29th September 1995 and retired thereafter were extended the benefit of Pension Scheme. The said Scheme was also applied to the employees of the Bank who were in service on 29th September 1995 but had died before the date of the settlement. The Scheme, inter alia, required that the employees or the family of the deceased employees would file option for Pension Scheme within 60 days from the date of the offer and within 30 days thereafter would remit the amount of Bank’s contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund with interest. Paragraph 10 of the Scheme required the Branch or the Divisional heads of the Bank to give wide publicity to the 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1795 of 2011 (6) dt.21-11-2013 3 / 5 Scheme and to inform the individual employees who had already retired or the family of the employees who had died. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, being a widow of the deceased employee who had died in 2005, was entitled to opt for Pension Scheme in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. She, however, failed to submit her option within 60 days stipulated by the Scheme. She has also failed to deposit the Bank’s contribution and the interest thereon as required under the Scheme. As her option for pension scheme was not accepted by the Bank, she approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No. 4256 of 2011. The petition was contested by the Bank. The learned single Judge has held that the stand of the Bank is hypertechnical and that the petitioner could not have been non-suited on the ground of her having failed to submit her option within the stipulated time. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has directed the Bank to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Circular/Scheme treating the same having been filed within time. The learned single Judge has also directed that the petitioner be paid ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate employment. Feeling aggrieved, the Bank has preferred this Appeal. At the outset, we may note that the petition was confined to the switching over to Pension Scheme and not for ex- gratia payment in lieu of compassionate employment. Learned advocate Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad has appeared for the Bank. He has submitted that the Bank has no objection in making payment of ex-gratia amount to the petitioner if she approaches the Bank. He has submitted that the Bank is aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned single Judge for allowing the petitioner to 4 Patna High Court LPA No.1795 of 2011 (6) dt.21-11-2013 4 / 5 switch over to the Pension Scheme. There is no gainsaying that the petitioner did fail to make application or to submit her option for switching over to the Pension Scheme within 60 days specified under the Bank’s Circular. There is also no gainsaying that the petitioner also failed to deposit the amount of Bank’s contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund and the interest thereon as specified in the Bank’s Circular. The question is whether such belated option ought to have been accepted by the Bank or was the Bank justified in refusing to accept the application made after the specified period. It is the case of the petitioner that although the Circular required a wide publicity to the said Circular and individual intimation to the families of the deceased employees, the Bank has failed to discharge its obligation under the said Circular. The contention has been answered by the Bank. According to the Bank, a wide publicity had been given in the newspapers as well as in the branches of the Bank. However, it is not the case of the Bank that individual information was given to the families of the deceased employees. Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Singh B. Chauhan v. Punjab National Bank and Others, {(2005) 6 SCC 262}. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the plea of the retired employee who had failed to submit option within the specified time and had also failed to remit the amount of contribution of the Bank to the Contributory Provident Fund as envisaged under the relevant Pension Regulations. We agree with Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad. The Scheme has to be implemented in verbatim. If any employee or the 5 Patna High Court LPA No.1795 of 2011 (6) dt.21-11-2013 5 / 5 member of the family of the deceased employee failed to make application or submit option within the specified time, such an application cannot be accepted. However, in the present case, as it is the case of the petitioner that she was not aware of the Scheme and that she had not received individual information from the Bank as envisaged by the Scheme and as the learned single Judge has already granted relief to the petitioner, we do not intend to interfere with the same provided the petitioner, within 30 days from today, deposits or pays the amount of Bank contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund with interest up to date as envisaged by the Bank’s Circular. In above view of the matter, this Appeal is partly allowed. The direction issued by the learned single Judge will be binding to the Bank only in case the petitioner, within 30 days from today, pays or remits the amount of Bank’s contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund with interest @ 10% per annum as envisaged by the Bank’s Circular. Interest will be paid up to date. In other words, the petitioner will remit such amount with interest computed from the date she received the amount of provident fund till the date she pays such amount to the Bank. In the event, the petitioner fails to remit the aforesaid amount and the interest as directed, she will forfeit her right to receive pension/family pension under the order of the learned single Judge.
Decision
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) Pawan/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)