Khokon Chandra Bag vs The United Bank Of India & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5625 Cal

  M/L121                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
18.08.2022               CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
  sb
   Ct 23                         APPELLATE SIDE
                                 WPA 18842 of 2019
                                  Khokon Chandra Bag
                                          Vs.
                             The United Bank of India & Ors.

                         Mr. Swapan Kumar Nandi,
                         Mr. Debjyoti Ghosh
                                     .... For the petitioner.

                         Mr. R. N. Majumder,
                         Mr. S. M. Obaidullah
                                     ... For the respondent/Bank

The affidavit-in-opposition by the respondents and

the petitioner's reply thereto filed in Court today are taken

in Court.

The petitioner says that the petitioner an employee of

United Bank of India now known as Punjab National Bank

(PNB) was initially governed under the Contributory

Provident Fund (in short, CPF). The petitioner was

suspended in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings

with effect from 14th February, 2009. During the period of

suspension, the petitioner was not allowed to enter into the

branch/office of the Bank except for drawing subsistence

allowance, operating his own account and for attending the

call of the Bank. During the period of suspension, the

respondent Bank gave an option to its employees to shift

from CPF to General Provident Fund (GPF) scheme. The

petitioner says that he could not submit the option within

the stipulated period since he was not aware of the same

on being prevented from entering the branch/office during

the suspension. The petitioner had given option belatedly

which had been rejected by the respondents Bank, being

the employer. The petitioner says that he has been

ultimately subjected to a major penalty of compulsory

retirement in the Disciplinary Proceedings. The petitioner

has challenged the final order in the Disciplinary

Proceedings and says that he is entitled to pension by

treating him to be under GPF as per the bipartite

agreement. The pension is available under the GPF scheme

and not under CPF. The petitioner has been paid all the

dues treating him to be an employee governed by CPF

scheme. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment

reported in (2014) 2 SCC, 715 (Bank of Baroda vs. S.K.

Kool (Dead) through Legal Representative & Anr.), in

support of his contention that even though he has been

imposed with a major penalty of compulsory retirement, he

is entitled to pension. The question of petitioner's pension

will arise only if it is established that the petitioner is

governed by the provisions of GPF scheme on the order of

the Disciplinary Proceedings being set aside.

Substantial argument has been advanced on behalf

of the petitioner, however, due to paucity of time, the

hearing could not be continued further.

Let this matter appear on 25th August, 2022.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)