A.K.Wadhera vs Punjab National Bank
2015 Latest Caselaw 8967 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of Decision: December 02, 2015

+                            W.P.(C) 6771/2001

      A.K.WADHERA                                          ..... Petitioner
                             Through:   In person

                    versus

      PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK                    .... Respondent
                   Through: Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

In this petition order of compulsory retirement of 3 rd November, 1999 (Annexure P-3), which was unsuccessfully challenged by petitioner by filing a statutory appeal, is assailed and a direction is sought to respondent-Bank for reinstatement of petitioner. The third prayer in this writ petition is to direct respondent-Bank to release full pension of petitioner from the date of his compulsory retirement in terms of PNB (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.

At the hearing, petitioner appears in person and chooses to argue himself.

Petitioner submits that since he has retired long back, therefore, he does not wish to contest the impugned order of compulsory retirement

and submits that he will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent to pay the full pension and to grant leave encashment. During the course of hearing, petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to statement of the then Branch Manager recorded before Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gautam Budh Nagar in a criminal case registered against petitioner, to show that the Branch Manager had admitted that petitioner had made an application on 20th January, 1996 (Annexure P-4) to opt for pension on his retirement. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the copy of application of 20th January, 1996 to show that it was personally handed over to the then Branch Manager, who has already admitted in criminal proceeding of having received this letter from petitioner.

It is pointed out by petitioner that he had also given his option for pension vide letter of 10th February, 1996 and that this letter was sent by post to respondent. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to copy of postal receipts. It is also submitted by petitioner that upon retirement, he had not accepted the Provident Fund and Gratuity under protest but respondent-Bank had deposited it in petitioner's bank account. Thus, it is submitted by petitioner that he is entitled to pensionary benefits.

Learned counsel for respondent-Bank has drawn attention of this Court to the counter filed by respondent-Bank to point out that it is specifically maintained by respondent-Bank that neither letter of 20th January, 1996 nor of 10th February, 1996 exercising option for pension was received from petitioner. Attention of this Court is drawn to respondent's communication of 13th February, 2001 (Annexure R-11) to point out that the then Branch Manager had confirmed that he had not received any option for pension from petitioner. It is submitted that

respondent's record does not show that petitioner had at any point of time opted for pension in lieu of provident fund. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that petitioner's request for pension was not received in the prescribed proforma, as mandated by the applicable Regulations.

Petitioner controverts the aforesaid submission of respondent's counsel and submits that he was never made aware that the option for pension has to be given in a prescribed proforma. This is controverted by learned counsel for respondent.

During the course of hearing, it was disclosed that consequent upon registration of a criminal case against petitioner, he was placed under suspension in the year 1995 and till the date of his compulsory retirement, he had remained under suspension and had been getting 50% of his total emoluments. However, it is not clear as to whether during the period of petitioner's suspension, provident fund contribution was deducted from the salary of petitioner or not. Had any deduction been made by respondent-Bank from the salary of petitioner towards the provident fund, then petitioner would have come to know about it and would have taken steps to ensure that deduction of provident fund is stopped, as he had purportedly opted for pension.

In the considered opinion of this Court, afore-noted crucial aspect goes to the root of the matter and is required to be considered by respondent-Bank and for this purpose, petitioner is permitted to make a comprehensive Representation with supporting documents within a period of four weeks to respondent-Bank, who shall obtain clarification from petitioner, if needed and thereafter decide petitioner's

Representation by passing a speaking order within a period of twelve weeks from the date, such Representation is received and fate of the Representation be conveyed to petitioner to enable him to have recourse to law, if need be.

To ensure compliance of this judgment, its copy be sent to respondent-Bank forthwith.

With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE DECEMBER 02, 2015 r