Shiv Narain Mishra vs The G.M. Uco Bank Head Office (Pad) ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1518 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) 7612/2009 & CM No. 4157/2012

%                                                           3rd April, 2013

SHIV NARAIN MISHRA                                        ...... Petitioner
                  Through:               Mr. R.K.Shukla, Advocate.


                            VERSUS

THE G.M. UCO BANK HEAD OFFICE (PAD) CALCUTTA W.B.
                                            ...... Respondent

Through: Mr. C.M.Manaktala, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, Shiv Narain Mishra, two

reliefs are claimed- one is for grant of pension and second is for payment of

interest for the delay in release of the retiral benefits to the petitioner. I may note

that the petitioner has expired during the pendency of the petition and is now

represented by his legal heirs.

2. So far as the issue of pension is concerned an employee would be

granted pension if the employee would have exercised such an option. The

petitioner claims that the petitioner had exercised the option in terms of a form

which has been filed as Annexure P-5 at page 25 to the writ petition. The

respondent no.1 bank has, however, categorically denied that the petitioner ever

exercised the option for grant of pension and that this form as claimed by the

petitioner was ever submitted by him.

3. A reference to the form, Annexure P-5 shows that there is no

endorsement of the form having been received by the respondent-bank. The

petitioner also has no proof that this form was ever submitted to the respondent-

bank. Accordingly, there is no reason for me to disbelieve the respondent that the

petitioner did not opt for the pension scheme and therefore he was not granted

pensionary benefits. I thus hold that the petitioner having failed to exercise the

option for grant of pension, he was/is not entitled to the relief of pensionary

benefits.

4. So far as the relief claimed of interest for the period of alleged delay

in paying the retiral benefits, it may be noted that the petitioner had disputed his

date of birth with the respondent-bank. In order to challenge his date of birth, the

petitioner had filed W.P(C) 1776/1996. This writ petition was ultimately decided

and dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 14.07.2008. Surely, if

the petitioner himself was contesting his date of birth as recorded with the

respondent-bank, and if the petitioner would have succeeded, the petitioner would

have got a longer service and he would not be retired on the date on which he

otherwise retired in 1996. In view of the prevailing uncertainty, the respondent-

bank was fully justified in paying retiral dues of the petitioner only after the

decision of the writ petition No.1776/1996 on 14.07.2008, but in fact, and it is not

disputed, that the payment of the retiral/terminal benefits was made to the

petitioner in the year 2003 i.e even before the decision of this writ petition.

5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition which is

accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

APRIL 03, 2013 as