Telangana High Court
Mutyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy, ... vs Chairman And M.D., Bank Of India, East ... on 22 November, 2023
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 29659 OF 2011
ORDER:
Petitioner joined the respondent bank on
04.07.1995 as Probationary Officer in Junior Management
Grade Scale-I at Visakhapatnam Branch and later, promoted to
Middle Management Grade Scale-II and to Middle Management
Grade Scale-III and was posted as Deputy Chief Manager at
Secunderabad Branch. It is stated that during 2000, the
Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced in the
banking industry and petitioner is stated to have opted for
voluntary retirement under the said scheme and accordingly, he
was released on 30.12.2000 under the said Scheme.
It is stated that respondent bank issued Circular
dated 01.11.1995 seeking Applications for option of pension in
lieu of contributory provident fund, however, petitioner did not
opt for pension as he decided to continue in Contributory
Provident Fund Scheme. In terms of the Agreement / joint note
dated 27.04.2010 entered into between Indian Banks
Association (IBA) and United Forum of Bank Unions, it was
agreed to give one more option to join Pension Scheme for a)
those employees / officers who were in service of the bank prior
to 29.09.1995 and continue in the service of the bank in the
date of settlement i.e. 27.04.2010 and b) those who were in
service of the bank prior to 29.09.1995 and retired after that
date and prior to the date of settlement; c) those employees who
ceased to be in service of the bank on or after 29.09.1995 on
account of voluntary retirement under Special Scheme after
rendering service for minimum period of 15 years; d) the family
members of those employees who were in service of the bank
prior to 29.09.1995 and retired / voluntary retired under the
Special Scheme after 29.09.1995 and died; e) the family
members of those employees who were in service of the bank
prior to 29.09.1995 but died while in service of the bank after
that day.
In accordance with the said agreement, the
respondent bank issued Circular No. 104/64, dated 24.08.2010
calling for option letters from the eligible persons and advised to
exercise option during 01.09.2010 to 30.10.2010 (both days
inclusive). The retired employees / officers were advised to
submit their option forms at the place from where they have
retired and they have to refund the management contribution of
the provident fund which they have received at the time of
retirement plus 56% of the said received amount within 30 days
after expiry of the said period of 60 days on or before
30.10.2010.
It is stated that petitioner retired from the bank
service on 30.12.2000 by exercising option for voluntary
retirement and he completed 25 years service in the respondent
bank, therefore, he is eligible to opt for pension as per Circular
dated 24.08.2010, but no circular was sent to him. After
retirement, petitioner went abroad and during his stay there, he
was hospitalized. After coming to know about introduction of
second option for those who have not opted in 1995, he made
an Application dated 19.03.2011 through the 3rd respondent to
the 2nd respondent, but no information is forth-coming. As he
had given letter of option for joining pension scheme, as he is
eligible under the circular dated 24.08.2010, the respondent
bank is liable to include him under Bank of India (Employees')
Pension Regulations, 1995. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. On behalf of respondent No.1 Bank, a counter-
affidavit admitting that petitioner worked as an officer during
1975 till 2000 and he opted for retirement under Special
Voluntary Retirement Scheme in 2000 and he relived with effect
from 30.12.2000 and received all VRS benefits and he continued
in Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The management
issued Circular dated 24.08.2010 giving chance to employees to
join pension scheme pursuant to agreement / joint note dated
27.04.2010 entered into between IBA and United Forum Bank
Unions. Under the said circular, the officers are required to
exercise option within 60 days from the date of offer to become
member of the pension fund etcetera and option had to be
exercised from 01.09.2010 to 30.10.2010. The procedure
prescribed was that they should submit option form before that
date to the branch from where the employee had retired and the
branch would forward the Application to the Zonal Office and
after getting the particulars of the employee, they would be
forwarded to terminal benefits division Head Office at Mumbai.
It is submitted that records of Zonal Office do not show receipt
of any Application of petitioner. If Application is not received by
30.10.2010, the bank was not obliged to consider the same at a
later point of time. Admittedly, petitioner did not submit the
option form by 30.10.2010, hence, he has no right to compel the
bank to process his Application. It is only on 19.03.2011 he is
said to have made the Application though the Chief Manager,
Secunderabad Brach, however, as the Scheme was already
closed, it is not obligatory on the part of the bank to
communicate its decision on the said Application. Hence,
prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.
4. Admittedly, petitioner retired from bank's service
under Special VRS 2000 after completion of 25 years of service.
As per Circular No. TBD/VSV177 dated 24.08.2010 para(1)(iii),
petitioner, who opted for VRS, was eligible to exercise option to
join the Scheme subject to terms and conditions mentioned for
retired employees. Wide publicity was also given by the Indian
Bank's Association as also by the Bank through local and
national newspapers and also through its branches, as averred
in the counter-affidavit. As per the Circular, option had to be
exercised from 01.09.2010 to 30.10.2010, but as is evident from
the material, he submitted the Application on 19.03.2011. The
ground taken by petitioner for not submitting in time is he came
back to Hyderabad from USA on 01.09.2010, again he was
hospitalized due to prostrate enlargement and inguinal hernia
and underwent surgery for the same.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ch. Siva Reddy
relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Kayoji Sorabji
Mirza of Mumbai Indian, Parsi Inhabitant v. the Union
Bank of India (Writ Petition No. 1020 of 2012). In the said
case, petitioner was abroad during the period of two months
and was therefore not in a position to make the Application for
opting the said Scheme. But here, in this case, petitioner is very
much available during the subject period, hence, this judgment
is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. When a policy decision is taken by an institution, it
cannot be relaxed for a particular individual. Normally, this
Court is slow to interfere with such policy decision. When
option has to be exercised from 01.09.2010 to 30.10.2010 and
petitioner is very much available in the country on 01.09.2010,
he cannot take such excuses to get relief of his choice. The
respondents have clearly stated in the counter that as petitioner
is stated to have made the Application on 19.03.2011, by which
date, the Scheme was closed, it was not obligatory on their part
to communicate its decision on the said Application as
petitioner ab initio approached the bank only after closure of
Scheme, hence, he is not entitled to join the Pension Scheme.
7. This Court is in complete agreement with the
submissions of the respondents, hence, is not inclined to
interfere with the decision taken by them. The Writ Petition is
therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
--------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
22nd November 2023
ksld
