H.G.S. Pahwa vs Punjab National Bank And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 2432 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of decision: 6th May, 2011

+                           W.P.(C) 13655/2009

%        H.G.S. PAHWA                                         ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Advocate.

                                     Versus

         PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS            ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                     NO

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              NO

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             NO
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner was compulsorily retired in the year 1991 from New

Bank of India. The New Bank of India merged with the respondent no.1

Punjab National Bank in the year 1993. This writ petition was filed in the

year 2009 seeking direction to the respondents to release the payment of

pension and other retiral benefits stated to be due to the petitioner and not

paid, together with interest.

2. Notice of the petition was issued. Pleadings have been completed.

3. As far as the claim for pension is concerned, the counsel for the

petitioner is unable to show any pension scheme of New Bank of India in

force at the time of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner

however relies on the Pension Regulations of the year 1995 of the Punjab

National Bank. The counsel for the respondent Bank contends that the said

Regulations were not applicable to the New Bank of India at the time of

compulsory retirement of the petitioner though in some cases the benefit of

the said Regulations was extended to the employees of New Bank India

who continued in employment with Punjab National Bank and exercised

the option to avail of the pension scheme. It is contended that the petitioner

having already ceased to be an employee of New Bank India prior to its

merger with the Punjab National Bank is not entitled to the benefit of the

said pension scheme.

4. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner has invited attention to the

Clause 3 of the Pension Regulations aforesaid making the same applicable

inter alia to employees who were in the service of the Bank on or after the

1st day of January, 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November,

1993 and who refund the entire amount of Bank's contribution to their

Provident Fund together with interest in the manner provided therein. The

counsel for the petitioner on the basis thereof contends that the petitioner

having retired after 1 st January, 1986 and before 1 st November, 1993 would

be covered by the Pension Regulations. It is further contended that the

occasion for the petitioner to refund the Bank's contribution to the

Provident Fund did not arise since the same has not been released to the

petitioner till now and for which also the claim has been made in the

present petition. It is stated that the petitioner had however within

prescribed time exercised the option to be covered by the scheme.

5. It has next been enquired from the counsel whether "retired" would

include compulsorily retired.

6. In this regard, it may be noticed that Regulation 2(x) defines

"retired" as including deemed to have retired under clause 2(l). clause 2(y)

defines "retirement" as cessation from Bank's service on attaining the age

of superannuation or on voluntary retirement or on premature retirement

by the Bank before attaining the age of superannuation specified in the

Service Regulations.

7. Clause 32 of the Regulations provides that Premature Retirement

Pension "may be granted to an employee" who has rendered minimum 10

years of service and who retires from service on account of orders of the

Bank to retire prematurely in the public interest or for any other reason

specified in service regulations.

8. The counsel for the respondent Bank has also drawn attention to

Regulation 33 dealing with "Compulsory Retirement Pension". It is his

contention that the Regulations having dealt with Compulsory Retirement

separately from Premature Retirement and the petitioner having

compulsorily retired would not fall in the definition of Premature Retirement.

9. However it is deemed appropraite to look into service Regulations of

respondent Bank in this regard and which are not available with either of

the counsels.

10. As far as the claim of the petitioner for other retiral benefits is

concerned, the respondent Bank in its counter affidavit though not

controverting the same has pleaded that the sum of `1,28,646.61p due

thereagainst was credited to the petitioner's SB Fund A/c No.8266 (old

number) and A/c No.3371000200082664 (new number) of the petitioner

with the Baijnath District, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh Branch of the

respondent Bank.

11. The petitioner on the contrary, in the rejoinder has denied that the

amount was so credited or that it has been allowed to be withdrawn by

him.

12. The petitioner along with rejoinder has also filed a copy of letter

dated 20th September, 2000 of the respondent Bank releasing the said

retiral benefits. It is pointed out therefrom that the same was conditional

upon payments by the petitioner of the amounts claimed by the respondent

Bank from the petitioner but for which the suit filed by the respondent

Bank against the petitioner has been dismissed. It is contended that owing

to the endorsement "CAUTION" on the letter dated 20th September, 2000,

the retiral benefits that were sent under cover of the said letter were not

released to the petitioner.

13. All the aforesaid questions entail disputed questions of fact and

which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. It is felt that the

appropriate remedy therefor is by way of a suit where witnesses can be

examined and cross examined.

14. Though the question of pension is a pure question of law and which

can be adjudicated but the decision thereof would also be dependent upon

whether the retiral benefits were released to the petitioner or not in as

much as if the retiral benefits were so released and the petitioner has failed

to deposit the same with the respondent Bank, the petitioner, even if

entitled to the benefit of pension scheme as contended by him, would in

any case be not entitled to the benefit of the pension scheme. It is thus felt

that the said question also be left for adjudication in the suit aforesaid.

15. The counsel for the petitioner also at this stage seeks to withdraw the

writ petition with liberty to file suit for recovery of amounts claimed to be

due including for pension. She however seeks protection qua limitation.

The counsel for the respondent Bank has been heard on said aspect.

16. In the entirety of the facts, it is felt that if the suit aforesaid is

preferred by the petitioner on or before 3rd June, 2011, the same be

considered on merits without any objection as to limitation.

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No order as

to costs.

Dasti under signature of court master.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 6th, 2011 pp