Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15541 of 2006 ====================================================== 1. Shri Sharma Nand, S/O late Kalu Prasad, resident of Village Chutakia Bazaar, P.S. Malsalami, Patna City, at present posted as computer Terminal Operator, Punjab National Bank, Patna City Branch, Patna City 2. Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, S/O late G.P.Singh, resident of Village Kharman Chauk, D.N.Singh Road, P.S. & Dist. Bhagalpur, at present posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier at P.N.B. Tetari Branch and District Bhagalpur 3. Shri Ram Sagar Sahu, S/O late Jatadhari Sahu, resident of Village Vatseyan, P.S. Aungia Bazar, Dist. Bhojpur, presently retired from P.N.B. Branch Piro Dist. Bhojpur. 4. Shri Dilip Kumar, S/O Shri Nageshwar Prasad Sah, resident of Village Brahmasthan, Post Bariarpur, Dist. Munger at present posted as Part time Sweeper (1/3), P.N.B.Branch Ramankabad, Munger
Legal Reasoning
5. Shri Pankaj Kumar, S/O Shri Rajeshwar Charan, resident of Village Ranchi Road Redma, Devi Mandap, Daltenganj, District Palamu, Jharkhand, presently posted as Officer, P.N.B., Regional Office, Gaya- B 6. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, S/O Shri Ram Sakal Sharma, resident of Village Telchh, P.O.Telchha, P.S.Janta Bazar, Dist. Saran presently posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier, Branch Rajauli, Dist. Nawada 7. Shri Krishna Murari, S/O Shri Jamadar Rai, resident of Village Dhanesh Chapra, P.O. Hafizpur, P.S. Janta Bazar, Dist. Saran, presently posted at Computer Terminal Operator, P.N.B. Baniapur Branch, Dist. Saran 8. Shri Baijnath Singh,S/O shri Ramagya Singh, resident of Village Mubarkpur, P.O.Danapur Cantt. Dist. Patna, presently posted at New Market Branch, Patna, as Armed Guard 9. Shri P.Keshav Rao, S/O Shri P.S. Murti, resident of Village Kothapata, P.S. & Dist.Rayagada, Orissa, presently posted as Branch Manager, P.N.B. Rajauli Branch, Dist. Nawada 10. Shri Chhatrapati Mishra,S/O Shri Kuca Mishra, resident of Village Sonwani, P.S. Haldi,Dist. Baliya ( U.P.) at present retired from 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.15541 of 2006 (6) dt.02-05-2013 2 / 6 P.N.B.,Branch Bairagi, Gaya 11. Shri Ayodhya Prasad, S/O late Ram Das Singh, resident of Village Kanhaul, P.S.Bihta, Dist. Patna at present posted at P.N.B. Branch Gaunpura, Patna ,.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Punjab National Bank through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its Registered Office at Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi- 110006 2. Assistant general Manager, P.N.B., P.F. & Pension fund Department, Rejendra Place, New Delhi-110001 3. Zonal Manager, P.N.B. Chanakya Complex, Patna ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh, Advocate Mr.Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Advocate Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Dr. Pankaj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 02-05-2013 Heard the parties. The petitioners, 11 in number, have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent Punjab National Bank (in short „Bank‟) and its functionaries to admit them and treat them as „Pension Optees‟ under the pension scheme of the respondent Bank, formulated and published after consultation with Reserve Bank of India and with the prior approval of the Central Government, and is known as Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the „Pension Scheme 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.15541 of 2006 (6) dt.02-05-2013 3 / 6 of the Bank), as according to them, they all had exercised their option for their admission in the pension scheme of the Bank on or before 27.1.1996. The present writ petition was heard earlier and was finally disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 5.10.2010 with a direction and observation that the petitioners are entitled to be admitted to the pension scheme of the respondent Bank, and, thereafter, they are entitled to get the consequential benefits. The respondent Punjab Nation Bank and its functionaries, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 5.10.2010, preferred L.P.A. No. 1985 of 2010, which was finally heard and allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 9.11.2011. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Writ Court for fresh decision. Hence, the matter has been listed again under the heading for admission. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that though some of the petitioners have superannuated from service, but many of them are still in service of the respondent Bank. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioners that all the petitioners are entitled to be admitted to the pension scheme of the respondent Bank as they had exercised their option within the time limit. According to them, despite exercising option within the time and though they are entitled to be recognized as „Pension Optees‟, yet the petitioners were not admitted to the pension scheme of the respondent Bank, therefore, they have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an appropriate direction for redressal of their valid grievances. 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.15541 of 2006 (6) dt.02-05-2013 4 / 6 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank and its functionaries has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners in the present writ petition. According to him, the petitioners had not exercised their option within the time prescribed and for non-fulfilment of other conditions they could not have been admitted to the pension scheme of the Bank. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the issues raised in the present proceeding on behalf of the petitioners are required to be examined and decided by looking into the claims and relevant documents of individual petitioners separately. This Court further finds that the Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of L.P.A. No. 1985 of 2010 preferred by the respondent Punjab National Bank and its functionaries vide judgment and order dated 9.11.2011 had recorded the following conclusions, which is reproduced as under:-
Decision
“Hence, the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the writ court for considering whether it will be convenient for it to consider cases of all the 11 writ petitioners and give findings with regard to date and validity of their option. If the writ court finds it possible, it shall decide the claims of the writ petitioners afresh after considering the case of the appellant Bank with regard to individual writ petitioners in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned earlier and the writ court feels other relevant facts. In case inconvenience in considering together the cases of 11 writ petitioners for the purpose of recording finding in individual cases, it may pass suitable directions and give liberty to the writ petitioners to prefer separate individual writ petitions.” On the basis of submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court also finds that the 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.15541 of 2006 (6) dt.02-05-2013 5 / 6 respondent Bank has created an internal mechanism for resolving the dispute regarding pension option by the employees under pension scheme of the Bank. Though the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondent Bank due to their non-admission in the pension scheme and not- treating them as pension optees, but they do not appear to have exhausted alternative remedy available to them in view of creation of internal mechanism by the respondent Bank. Taking into consideration the entire factual background, this Court is of the opinion that for effective and final decision with respect to their individual claims, each of the petitioners must file their separate comprehensive representation with all supporting documents raising all the pleas, which have been raised in the present proceeding, before respondent No.2. It is ordered, accordingly. If such a separate comprehensive representation is filed by each of the petitioners separately with all supporting documents along with a certified copy of the present order within a period of one month from today, then respondent no.2 and/or any other competent authority or the Committee so constituted for said purpose by the respondent Bank shall be obliged to consider and decide their individual claims by looking into the materials produced by them and also the relevant records of the Bank strictly in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order. If on consideration of the materials, respondent No.2 and/or any other competent authority of the respondent Bank or the Committee so constituted by the Bank come to a conclusion that claims raised on behalf of the petitioners individually are admissible to them, then consequential order shall also be issued without any 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.15541 of 2006 (6) dt.02-05-2013 6 / 6 unnecessary delay. Entire exercise must be completed by respondent No.2 and/or any other competent authority of the respondent Bank or the Committee so constituted by the Bank within a maximum period of six months from the date of filing of the representation by each of the petitioners separately. The application stands finally disposed of with the directions and observations made above. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)