Raj Bala vs Punjab National Bank
2011 Latest Caselaw 1461 Del

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                           WRIT PETITION(C) NO.8402/2010


                                            Date of Decision : March 14, 2011

        RAJ BALA                                       ..... Petitioner
                                Through:   Mr. K.G. Mishra, Adv.

                           versus

        PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                            ..... Respondent
                      Through:             Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA


1.      Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
        judgment? Yes
2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes


SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks the benefit of a, "PF and Pension

Circular No. 8/2010", issued by the respondent Bank on 16.08.2010,

in terms whereof, family members of employees who were in the

service of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995 but had died while in service

after that date but before 27.04.2010, would be eligible for family

pension. That circular, inter alia, granted the family members an

opportunity to exercise the option of receiving family pension instead

of Provident Fund. They were permitted to exercise this option

between 27.08.2010 and 25.10.2010. There was also a condition that

anyone exercising this option was also required to refund 156% of the

Provident Fund that had been disbursed to the deceased employee.

This refund was to be made between 26.10.2010 to 24.11.2010.

2. The husband of the petitioner is stated to have died in

December 2008. It is also not in dispute that her husband was in

service of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995 and consequently, these two

conditions were met.

3. The petitioner also applied for grant of family pension on

27.09.2010 i.e. within the time prescribed. However, the amount, as

envisaged under the scheme, was not deposited by the petitioner

within the time granted. The time for making the deposit expired on

24.11.2010. It is stated that the petitioner was unwell during this

period, and therefore, could not deposit the same. In support, the

petitioner has produced a medical certificate purportedly issued by one

Ashoka Nursing Home, Loni, Ghaziabad, certifying that from

20.11.2010 to 28.11.2010, the petitioner was suffering from "viral

fever and vertigo".

4. Counsel further states that in fact, the petitioner was not

obliged to take any steps towards deposit of the amount till the

appropriate advice quantifying the amount payable by his client was

given to his client in terms of paragraph 8 of the aforesaid Circular No.

8/2010. Paragraph 8 of the circular states as follows:

"The amount to be refunded by the retiring employees/officers or their family members (in case of deceased employees/officers) who opt for Pension Option shall be advised to the Branches separately for advising/communicating the same to them.

However, the commuted value of pension will be ascertained only after the pension proposal is received from the Branches/Circle Offices/HO Divisions (as per the existing system for submission of Pension Proposals).

The commuted value will be value based on next date of birth of the employee from the date of commencement of Pension option i.e. 27.08.2010."

He also submits that looking to the said provision, even if

the medical certificate is not taken into consideration, the obligation of

the petitioner to deposit the amount never commenced because no

communication was received from the respondent quantifying the

amount payable by her.

5. It is the petitioner's case that she also approached the

Bank on 6th December, 2010 when she was informed for the first time

that the last date for refunding the amount was 24 th November, 2010

and since the amount has not been refunded, therefore, she is not

entitled to the benefit of the Scheme.

6. It is also the petitioner's case that she has always been

possessed with sufficient funds and can easily pay this amount, which,

according to her calculation, comes to about Rs. 3,44,570.68. Counsel

states that a larger amount has been continuously lying in the

petitioner's name in the same bank.

7. To my mind, keeping in view the aforesaid paragraph 8 of

the Scheme, the only way in which the Scheme can be construed is

that the Bank was also obliged to communicate all the relevant

particulars with regard to the amount to be deposited by the petitioner

immediately on the making of the application exercising the option;

and it is only thereafter that the period for making the deposit would

begin to run. This is because, on the one hand, paragraph 8 of the

Scheme obliges the bank to compute the amount refundable, and to

inform the applicant accordingly, without setting down any time limit

for doing so; on the other hand, not only is the applicant to refund the

amount within 30 days, he has to do so before 24.11.2010. If the

Bank itself considered it necessary to compute and inform the

applicant of the amount to be refunded by him, then, in the absence of

that information, any opportunity given to him to pay is meaningless.

Furthermore, for this Court to uphold the denial of the benefit of the

Scheme on the sole ground of not having deposited the amount before

the cut-off date of 24.11.2010 would amount to rendering compliance

of paragraph 8 optional on the part of the Bank. Paragraph 8 creates

a vested right in the applicant to be informed of the amount to be

deposited by him, and the Bank cannot be permitted to ignore it. The

only rational way to interpret the Scheme therefore, is that the

applicant has to first apply before 25.10.2010. Having done that, he

has to deposit the amount within 30 days after he is informed by the

Bank under paragraph 8 and not before.

8. Counsel for the respondent Bank is also unable to meet the

contention with regard to the obligation of the Bank to quantify and

communicate the amount which is to be deposited by the family

members of the deceased employee. It is, therefore, obvious that the

obligation of the petitioner to deposit the amount only arises once the

requirements of para 8 have been followed. Any other interpretation

would render clause 8 meaningless.

9. Under the circumstances, the respondent is directed to

properly compute the amount which has to be refunded by the

petitioner to the respondent bank in terms of its aforesaid circular No.

8/10 dated 16th August, 2010, within four weeks from today. The

petitioner would thereafter be obliged to deposit the necessary amount

within 30 days of receipt of this intimation from the respondent. Once

that is done, the respondent will process the matter further and admit

the petitioner to family pension in terms of the Rules, within two

months.

10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

MARCH 14, 2011 rd/sl