R.P.S. Yadav vs State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 599 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Rule.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Petitioner, by this writ petition, seeks a direction to the respondents to grant his service pension as per his representation of 10th September, 1997 after declaring that he retired from the service on 31st March, 1997. Further, direction is sought to the bank to grant pension w.e.f. 1st April, 1997.

3. Counsel for the petitioner and respondent have been heard. This is an unfortunate case where the petitioner was disabled and sought retirement.

4. Petitioner, R.P.S.Yadav, was employed with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The present writ petition has been filed through petitioner's wife, Smt.Santra Yadav. Petitioner suffered brain haemmorage on 27th February, 1994 and was hospitalised. Petitioner suffered disability of 62 per cent and was unable to resume normal activities. As a result, petitioner on 19th October, 1995, wrote to the Bank (Annexure P-7), praying that his resignation be accepted and he be relieved since he was unable to continue with the services due to his physical and mental disability.

5. Petitioner was permitted to retire upon attaining the age of 55 years w.e.f. 31st March, 1997. It is the respondents' case that pursuant thereto on 25th September, 1997, petitioner was paid Rs.3,67,840.67 paise towards his own contribution and that of the Bank's contribution towards provident Fund. The said sum included a sum of Rs.2,15,545.50 paise as Bank's contribution. The gratuity amounting to Rs.1 lakh was also paid. The amounts paid were accepted by the petitioner without any reservation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before me that petitioner on account of disability could not have exercised the option for availing of the pension benefit within 120 days, prior to the date of the notification i.e. 23.3.1996. There is an apparent contradiction in the petitioner's stand on this issue. Petitioner on the one hand contends that in view of the petitioner's health condition option could not be exercised. Yet it is claimed that a representation was made in 1995, where the petitioner had exercised the option for availing of the pension. It is the petitioner's own case that the said representation is neither available with him nor with the respondents in their record. Respondents in their counter affidavit have denied that the petitioner ever exercised any option. Rather it is stated that the petitioner's wife in the representation of 10th September, 1997 to the Managing Director of the Bank herself admitted that the officers had informed her that due to non exercise of option petitioner was not covered under the pension scheme. In these circumstances, even though petitioner on account of his illness deserves sympathetic consideration, it is clear from the factual matrix that there has been no exercise of option opting for availing the pension. Rather the petitioner's case is flip flop in nature on one hand it is averred that option could not be exercised on account of illness on the other hand it is stated that the option has been exercised by way of representation, which is not on record. The position which emerges is that the petitioner received the provident fund contributions way back in 1997. The present petition has been filed belatedly in 2002. It may also be noted that under the pension Regulations, the scheme envisaged the transfer of the provident fund contribution of the company to the pension fund to enable the grant and payment of pension. This obviously has not happened.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was now willing to hand over the contribution towards provident fund received by him with interest if the Bank was to grant pension. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that at this belated stage there is no question of any refund being taken of the provident fund contribution, which has already been paid to the petitioner as far back as in 1997. He submits that Pension Regulations required exercise of option within 120 days of notification of the Regulations and transfer of Company Provident Fund Contributions together with interest within 60 days to the Pension Fund, which was not done. Hence there is no entitlement to pension.

8. In these circumstances, petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference and a direction by this Court as sought cannot be granted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.    Dismissed.