Satya Devi And Ors vs The Punjab National Bank And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 1684 j&K

                                                                 Sr. No.21

         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                         AT JAMMU

                                             LPASW No. 161/2011


Satya Devi and ors.                               .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)



                      Through: Mr. Navneet Dubey, Advocate.



                Vs


The Punjab National Bank and ors.                           ..... Respondent(s)


                      Through: Mr. Ravinder Sharma, Advocate.


Coram:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE

                                   ORDER

15.12.2021

(OPEN COURT)

HIGH (Per:- Thakur-J) OF JAMMU & COURT KASHMIR AND

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the LADAKH judgment and order dated 31.05.2011, whereby the petition filed by the

petitioner has been dismissed.

Briefly stated the material facts are as under:-

2. The petitioner was working in the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter

referred to as the "Bank"). The Bank floated a scheme commonly known as

Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension Regulation, 1995 (hereinafter

referred to as the "pension scheme"), which envisaged that those

employees, who were in service of the bank could opt for receiving pension

from the Bank post-retirement. The requirement was that the employee had

to opt for the benefit of the pension scheme within 120 days from the date of

publication of the notification in the government gazette. Admittedly, the date

of notification of the scheme was 09.09.1995 and the same was published in

the government gazette on 29.09.1995. Calculating 120 days from the date

of publication of the notification in the government gazette, the employees

had to opt for the pension scheme on or before 27.01.1996.

3. It appears that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants herein

opted for the pension scheme and according to the assertion of the petitioner

in the writ petition, he had applied within time, i.e., on or before 27.01.1996.

The further case of the petitioner before the Writ Court was that even after

opting for the scheme well within time through proper channel, the official

respondents had continued to deduct provident fund contribution from the

Account of the petitioner and also equally contributed as an employer, which

continued till the date of his retirement. It was stated that upon retirement

on 04.12.2003, to the surprise of the petitioner, the case of the petitioner for

grant of pension was rejected on the ground that the option exercised was

beyond the cut-off date. In the response filed by the Bank, a specific stand

taken was that the appellants had exercised the option on 31.01.1996.

4. We have gone through the records of the case, in which we find

that the option form filled up by the petitioner clearly bears the date

31.01.1996 and, therefore, we have no doubt in holding that the option

exercised was, in fact, beyond the cut-off date.

5. In the background of the aforementioned facts, upon rejection of

the case of the petitioner for grant of pension, he approached the Writ Court,

who, by virtue of judgment and order dated 31.05.2011 dismissed the

petition on the ground that the option was not exercised within the time

prescribed and that the case of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the

respondent-Bank.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants, being aggrieved of the

judgment and order impugned, questions the same on the ground that the

view expressed by the Writ Court was legally untenable, inasmuch as, the

Writ Court had failed to notice that all along after the submission of the

option form by the petitioner, the Bank treated him as a person, who had

opted for the pension scheme and not only that, had continued to make

deductions, considering the petitioner eligible for grant of pension.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently urged

that the documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants,

reflecting the petitioner to have exercised the option were processed at the

lower level in the bank's hierarchy and, therefore, any error in reflecting him

as being eligible to receive pensionary benefits would not take away the right

of the Bank to hold otherwise, if the petitioner was otherwise not entitled to

receive the pensionary benefits on account of the fact that he had not opted

for the pensionary scheme before the cut-off date.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

9. Admittedly, the option exercised by the petitioner was exercised

beyond the cut-off date. Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to bring

even a single instance to our notice, where an option even when exercised

late and beyond the cut-off date was considered valid for purposes of grant of

pensionary benefits. The appellants, therefore, cannot at all claim any

discrimination insofar as the application of the pension scheme is concerned,

which appears to have been applied uniformly throughout the country. We

are satisfied with the explanation rendered by the learned counsel for the

respondents when he stated that the cut-off date was sacrosanct, inasmuch

as, there were lacs of employees throughout the country, who would be

covered by the pension scheme and in case, the cut-off date was not

uniformly applied, it would leave gaps open, leading to flood of litigation

throughout the country. It was suggested that it was in that view of the

matter that the cut-off date was fixed so that beyond the cut-off date, no

claim whatsoever would be entertainable and the pension scheme would

apply only to those employees, who would exercise their options by the said

date.

10. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Bank

cannot be permitted to backtrack after having accepted the petitioner as one,

who had validly exercised the option and treated him as such for a period of

eight years, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that no prejudice, at

all, would have been caused to the petitioner in the interregnum, inasmuch

as whatever deductions were made from the petitioner's Account were, in

fact, returned to him by way of a Cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,25,601.83/-,

which, however, was refused to be encashed by the petitioner. An error at

any level in the bank's hierarchy, in our opinion, would not have the effect of

creating any additional right in favour of the petitioner, if he was not

otherwise entitled to the benefits under the pension scheme. Therefore, in

our opinion, we cannot persuade ourselves to take a view different from the

one taken by the Writ Court. However, it appears that the cheque for an

amount of Rs. 1,25,601.83/- has still not been encashed by the petitioner

even when the same was handed over to him in October, 2004. Since the

said amount continues to remain with the respondents, we direct that the

said amount along with statutory rate of interest, which may have accrued on

the said amount be paid to the appellants within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

11. We wish to point out here that since during the interregnum, the

petitioner, namely, Jagdish Dutt Sharma has expired and his legal

representatives had been brought on record, therefore, whatever amount is

due and payable shall be paid to the legal representatives of the said Jagdish

Dutt Sharma.

12. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

                        (Mohan Lal)                  (Dhiraj Singh Thakur)
                          Judge                               Judge
Jammu
15.12.2021
Ram Krishan

                                   Whether the order is speaking?           Yes/No
                                   Whether the order is reportable?         Yes/No