Smt. Bhateri vs Punjab National Bank
2011 Latest Caselaw 2669 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                              Date of decision: 18th May, 2011

+                          WP(C) NO.1617/2011

SMT. BHATERI                                               ..... Petitioner
                           Through:      Mr. K.G. Mishra, Advocate

                                      Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                         ..... Respondent
                 Through: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.      Whether reporters of Local papers may                      No
        be allowed to see the judgment?

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 is the wife of late Sh. Sukhbir Singh who died while

in service as Daftary in the Ashok Vihar Delhi branch of the respondent

Bank. The petitioner has been given employment as a peon in the

respondent Bank on compassionate grounds. The respondent Bank also

paid the terminal dues of Sh. Sukhbir Singh to the petitioner. Sh. Sukbir

Singh was not a pension optee under the first Pension Option Scheme

introduced by the respondent Bank in the year 1993-94.

2. The respondent Bank vide Circular dated 16 th August, 2010

introduced the second option to the employees of the respondent Bank

who had not opted for pension in terms of the first option introduced in

the year 1993-94. Under the said Circular, the family of those officers /

employees who were in service of the respondent Bank prior to 29th

September, 1995 and who had died while in service of the respondent

Bank after that date but prior to 27th April, 2010 were inter alia eligible

for family pension subject to:

(i) Exercising the option in writing on or before 25th October,

2010.

(ii) Refunding on or before 24 th November, 2010, the entire

amount of Bank's contribution to the provident fund and

interest accrued thereon received after death together with

deceased's share in contribution towards meeting 30% of the

funding gap

3. The petitioner as the wife of the Sh. Sukhbir Singh was eligible

under the aforesaid Circular and on 8th September, 2010 i.e. within time

exercised the option for becoming a member of the Pension Fund.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she is illiterate and the Dealing

Officer of the respondent Bank advised the petitioner that the petitioner

was required to deposit `44,879.92p with the respondent Bank for

becoming the member of the Pension Fund. The petitioner again within

time i.e. on 18th November, 2010 deposited the sum of `44,879.92p with

the respondent Bank. The petitioner claims that she was assured that she

had thus become member of the Pension Fund.

5. However, when others started receiving pension and petitioner did

not, she claims to have made enquiries and was then told that she was

required to deposit approximately `70,000/-but had deposited only

`44,879.92 as aforesaid and thus had not become a member of the Pension

Fund. Upon representations of the petitioner not meeting with any

success, the present petition was filed on 1 st March, 2011 seeking

directions to respondent Bank to accept the correct amount from the

petitioner and to condone the delay in making the deposit of the correct

amount by the stipulated date of 24th November, 2010 and to treat the

petitioner as the member of the Pension Fund.

6. Notice of the petition was issued and a counter affidavit has been

filed by the counsel for the petitioner. The counsels have been heard.

7. The counsel for the respondent Bank has drawn attention to the

Circular aforesaid which provided that any option not received or full

amount of refund not made within the stipulated date will render the

pension option invalid. He has contended that the petitioner having

admittedly not made the deposit of the correct amount within the

stipulated date is now not entitled to become a member of the Pension

Fund. It is also contended that the petitioner being herself employed with

the respondent Bank cannot contend that the correct amount was not

informed to her. It is further contended that the averments in the petition

that she was misinformed are vague and without any particulars of name,

place, time etc. Reliance is placed on Food Corporation of India Vs. Ram

Kesh Yadav (2007) 9 SCC 531 laying down that an employer cannot be

directed to act contrary to the terms of its policy. The policy in that case

was of compassionate appointment.

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

Clause 8 of the Circular which was as under:

"8. 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).

He has contended that thereunder the Bank was to advise its

branches separately for advising / communicating to the concerned

persons about the Scheme. It is contended that no such communication of

the correct amount due from the petitioner was communicated to the

petitioner and in the counter affidavit also it has merely been stated that

the amount to be deposited must have been communicated to the

petitioner and no particulars have been given of the person who

communicated the correct amount to the petitioner. The counsel for the

petitioner has also handed over in the Court a copy of the Ledger account /

statement of the petitioner with the respondent Bank showing payment of

sum of `44,879.92 on 18th November, 2010 by the petitioner to the

respondent Bank towards the Pension Fund. Therefrom it is also shown

that as on that date, the petitioner was possessed of a sum of `1,88,097.00

in that account alone and it is contended that it is not as if the petitioner

was not possessed of the amount required to be deposited of `70,000/-.

From the said ledger statement, it is also shown that the said amount of

`44,879.92 deposited by the petitioner towards the Pension Fund was

returned to the petitioner only on 18th February, 2011. Reference is also

made to the judgment dated 14th March, 2011 of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.8402/2010 titled Raj Bala Vs. Punjab National Bank where also for

the reason of the aforesaid Clause 8 in the Circular, direction was issued

for giving an opportunity to the petitioner in that case to become a

member of the Pension Fund. Reference is also made to the order dated

28th February, 2011 in W.P.(C) No.4278/2008 titled R.K. Jain Vs. Punjab

National Bank where also directions were issued for allowing the

petitioner in that case to become a member of PNB Parivar Bhavishya

Arogya Scheme for the reason of the petitioner therein having been unable

to opt therefor within time for bona fide reasons.

9. I have no reason not to follow the dicta of this Court in Raj Bala

(supra) and R.K. Jain (supra). Merely because the petitioner in the

present case is also employed with the respondent Bank would not

disentitle the petitioner from the same treatment as meted out to the

petitioners in the other two cases. Though the petitioner is working in the

respondent Bank but considering the post at which she is working and her

educational and social background, no presumption can be drawn that by

her mere employment she would be aware of the exact amount required to

be deposited. The very fact that the petitioner exercised the option for

becoming a member of the Pension Fund and also deposited the money

within the stipulated time is indicative of the petitioner having exercised

the option and having not been able to deposit correct amount for the

reason of having been not informed of the same.

10. The petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is granted time

till 25th May, 2011 to deposit a sum of `70,000/- with the respondent

Bank. The respondent Bank to on or before 10 th June, 2011 inform to the

petitioner further amounts if any required to be deposited by the petitioner

for becoming a member of the Pension Fund under the Circular aforesaid

as well as of other formalities if any required to be completed therefor and

to have the said formalities completed on or before 30 th June, 2011 and to

admit the petitioner to family pension in terms of the Circular aforesaid.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) MAY 18, 2011 'gsr'