Delhi High Court
R.C.Vasudev vs Punjab National Bank on 24 January, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 3415/2010
% JANUARY, 24, 2013
R.C.VASUDEV ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Piyush Sharma and
Mr.K.G.Mishra, Advocate
VERSUS
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Arora, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By means of the present petition, the petitioner who was an employee of the
respondent/Punjab National Bank seeks the relief of setting aside of the orders
passed by the respondent-bank dated 10.12.2002 and 22.06.2009 in not treating the
petitioner as a pension optee under the scheme for which the cut-off date was
30.10.1994.
2. Before me, it could not be disputed on behalf of the respondent-bank that
petitioner had in fact applied as a pension optee under the scheme of which cut-off
W.P.C 3415/2010. Page 1 of 5
date was 30.10.1994, inasmuch as, a specific letter dated 16.10.2002 to this effect
was written by the concerned officer of the bank to the Chief Manager of the
Pension Fund Department at Head Office at New Delhi. This letter dated
16.10.2002 therefore is unquestionable record of the respondent-bank itself and
which shows that the petitioner had duly exercised the option for the pension under
the 1994 scheme (which got converted to a regular PNB (Employees) Pension
Regulations, 1995 and reference in this order to the 1994 scheme will be read
accordingly).
3. The petitioner on the pension not being credited to his account wrote a letter
dated 14.6.2002 to the respondent -bank which reads as under:-
"The Chief
P.F.Department
Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place
New Delhi (Through Regional Office, South Delhi Region)
Reg: P.F.A/c No. 021495-R.C.Vasudeva
On receipt of my P.F. statement for the period October 2001 to March
2002, it has been observed that the statement does not reflect the status
of my pension option and that the amount of Bank's contribution has
not been transferred to Pension Fund.
In connection with the above, I state that I had opted for pension on the
very first offer made by the Bank and that my P.F. statements being
received thereafter do reflect my pension option as "YES" and the
amount of Bank's contribution were being regularly transferred to
Pension Fund. For your ready reference, I am enclosing herewith
copies of my P.F. statements for the period October 2000 to March,
2001, April 2001 to October 2001 and October 2001 to March 2002.
W.P.C 3415/2010. Page 2 of 5
You are requested to kindly look into the matter and rectify the error in
your records accordingly i.e., my pension option be treated as "YES".
(R.C.VASUDEVA)
Chief Manager"
4. The consideration of this representation by the petitioner took a long time
and ultimately Appellate Authority rejected the representation vide letter dated
22.6.2009 leading to filing of this writ petition in the year 2010.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank has made two submissions before
me. The first submission was that the record compilation by the bank did not show
the petitioner as a pension optee under the 1994 scheme, and the second
submission was of delay and laches disentitling the petitioner to the reliefs claimed
in the writ petition.
6. So far as the first aspect is concerned, merely because the bank mixes up its
record and losses vital documents cannot mean that the petitioner did not exercise
his pension option inasmuch as the respondent-bank has not questioned the
existence of its inter-office communication dated 16.10.2002 which is relied upon
by the petitioner. Once the letter dated 16.10.2002 is admitted, I fail to understand
as to how an excuse of the bank of not having the relevant record can be taken up.
In the face of the inter-office communication dated 16.10.2002 I reject the
W.P.C 3415/2010. Page 3 of 5
argument urged on behalf of the respondent-bank that the petitioner had not
exercised the option under 1994 scheme for pension.
7. So far as the issue of delay and laches is concerned, the petitioner
represented to the respondent-bank way back on 14.6.2002, and ultimately, the
Appellate Authority rejected the claim of the petitioner on 22.6.2009, therefore,
this petition was consequently filed in May, 2010. Accordingly, I do not find that
there is any delay and laches in approaching this court inasmuch as this court will
only be approached when all the remedies available to the petitioner in the
respondent-bank are exhausted, and which were finally exhausted when the
Appellate Authority passed the order dated 22.6.2009.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner will be
treated as a pension optee under the 1994 scheme which had a cut-off date of
30.10.1994. All necessary monetary benefits of pension will flow to the petitioner
as if he was a pension optee under 1994 scheme. In case any amounts have already
been paid by the respondent-bank to the petitioner, the respondent-bank will be
entitled to adjust the amounts. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest at the
rate of 9% per annum simple, subject however to the fact that the interest will only
be payable on the net balance payable to the petitioner after the respondent-bank
makes necessary adjustments in accordance with law. The petitioner will be
W.P.C 3415/2010. Page 4 of 5
entitled to interest from 14.6.2002 on all arrears to be due and payable till the time
the actual monetary benefits are paid to the petitioner taking the petitioner to be a
pension optee under the 1994 scheme.
9. Petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
JANUARY 24, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
