Telangana High Court
Mutyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy, ... vs Chairman And M.D., Bank Of India, East ... on 22 November, 2023
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 29659 OF 2011
ORDER:
Petitioner joined the respondent bank on 04.07.1995 as Probationary Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I at Visakhapatnam Branch and later, promoted to Middle Management Grade Scale-II and to Middle Management Grade Scale-III and was posted as Deputy Chief Manager at Secunderabad Branch. It is stated that during 2000, the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced in the banking industry and petitioner is stated to have opted for voluntary retirement under the said scheme and accordingly, he was released on 30.12.2000 under the said Scheme.
It is stated that respondent bank issued Circular dated 01.11.1995 seeking Applications for option of pension in lieu of contributory provident fund, however, petitioner did not opt for pension as he decided to continue in Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. In terms of the Agreement / joint note dated 27.04.2010 entered into between Indian Banks Association (IBA) and United Forum of Bank Unions, it was agreed to give one more option to join Pension Scheme for a) 2 those employees / officers who were in service of the bank prior to 29.09.1995 and continue in the service of the bank in the date of settlement i.e. 27.04.2010 and b) those who were in service of the bank prior to 29.09.1995 and retired after that date and prior to the date of settlement; c) those employees who ceased to be in service of the bank on or after 29.09.1995 on account of voluntary retirement under Special Scheme after rendering service for minimum period of 15 years; d) the family members of those employees who were in service of the bank prior to 29.09.1995 and retired / voluntary retired under the Special Scheme after 29.09.1995 and died; e) the family members of those employees who were in service of the bank prior to 29.09.1995 but died while in service of the bank after that day.
In accordance with the said agreement, the respondent bank issued Circular No. 104/64, dated 24.08.2010 calling for option letters from the eligible persons and advised to exercise option during 01.09.2010 to 30.10.2010 (both days inclusive). The retired employees / officers were advised to submit their option forms at the place from where they have retired and they have to refund the management contribution of the provident fund which they have received at the time of 3 retirement plus 56% of the said received amount within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days on or before 30.10.2010.
It is stated that petitioner retired from the bank service on 30.12.2000 by exercising option for voluntary retirement and he completed 25 years service in the respondent bank, therefore, he is eligible to opt for pension as per Circular dated 24.08.2010, but no circular was sent to him. After retirement, petitioner went abroad and during his stay there, he was hospitalized. After coming to know about introduction of second option for those who have not opted in 1995, he made an Application dated 19.03.2011 through the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent, but no information is forth-coming. As he had given letter of option for joining pension scheme, as he is eligible under the circular dated 24.08.2010, the respondent bank is liable to include him under Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. On behalf of respondent No.1 Bank, a counter- affidavit admitting that petitioner worked as an officer during 1975 till 2000 and he opted for retirement under Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme in 2000 and he relived with effect from 30.12.2000 and received all VRS benefits and he continued 4 in Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The management issued Circular dated 24.08.2010 giving chance to employees to join pension scheme pursuant to agreement / joint note dated 27.04.2010 entered into between IBA and United Forum Bank Unions. Under the said circular, the officers are required to exercise option within 60 days from the date of offer to become member of the pension fund etcetera and option had to be exercised from 01.09.2010 to 30.10.2010. The procedure prescribed was that they should submit option form before that date to the branch from where the employee had retired and the branch would forward the Application to the Zonal Office and after getting the particulars of the employee, they would be forwarded to terminal benefits division Head Office at Mumbai. It is submitted that records of Zonal Office do not show receipt of any Application of petitioner. If Application is not received by 30.10.2010, the bank was not obliged to consider the same at a later point of time. Admittedly, petitioner did not submit the option form by 30.10.2010, hence, he has no right to compel the bank to process his Application. It is only on 19.03.2011 he is said to have made the Application though the Chief Manager, Secunderabad Brach, however, as the Scheme was already closed, it is not obligatory on the part of the bank to 5 communicate its decision on the said Application. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Admittedly, petitioner retired from bank's service under Special VRS 2000 after completion of 25 years of service. As per Circular No. TBD/VSV177 dated 24.08.2010 para(1)(iii), petitioner, who opted for VRS, was eligible to exercise option to join the Scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned for retired employees. Wide publicity was also given by the Indian Bank's Association as also by the Bank through local and national newspapers and also through its branches, as averred in the counter-affidavit. As per the Circular, option had to be exercised from 01.09.2010 to 30.10.2010, but as is evident from the material, he submitted the Application on 19.03.2011. The ground taken by petitioner for not submitting in time is he came back to Hyderabad from USA on 01.09.2010, again he was hospitalized due to prostrate enlargement and inguinal hernia and underwent surgery for the same.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ch. Siva Reddy relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Kayoji Sorabji Mirza of Mumbai Indian, Parsi Inhabitant v. the Union Bank of India (Writ Petition No. 1020 of 2012). In the said case, petitioner was abroad during the period of two months 6 and was therefore not in a position to make the Application for opting the said Scheme. But here, in this case, petitioner is very much available during the subject period, hence, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. When a policy decision is taken by an institution, it cannot be relaxed for a particular individual. Normally, this Court is slow to interfere with such policy decision. When option has to be exercised from 01.09.2010 to 30.10.2010 and petitioner is very much available in the country on 01.09.2010, he cannot take such excuses to get relief of his choice. The respondents have clearly stated in the counter that as petitioner is stated to have made the Application on 19.03.2011, by which date, the Scheme was closed, it was not obligatory on their part to communicate its decision on the said Application as petitioner ab initio approached the bank only after closure of Scheme, hence, he is not entitled to join the Pension Scheme.
7. This Court is in complete agreement with the submissions of the respondents, hence, is not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by them. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
7
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 22nd November 2023 ksld