Gyani Ram vs SBBJ and Others

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J—The respondent-Bank declined the claim of the petitioner to include him in the Pension Scheme in the backdrop of the Terms of Settlement dated 27th April, 2010; aggrieved of the action, the petitioner has instituted the present writ application praying for the following relief(s):-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that:-

1- By appropriate writ order or direction, bank be directed to pay pension to the petitioner with effect from 1.7.02 with an interest at the rate of 24 percent per annum.

2- Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3- Costs of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

Shorn of unnecessary details the indispensable materials facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein needs to be first noticed. The petitioner was initially appointed as ''Riffle Man'' in Indian Army on 14th October, 1963. On 24th July, 1972, the petitioner accepted appointment as ''Watchman-cum-Peon'' with the respondent-Bank. In the year 1978, the petitioner was accorded promotion as ''Head Guard-cum-Peon''. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that in the year 1995, he has submitted his option opting for pension by filling up a form in triplicate, which was submitted to the Branch Manager. The petitioner, being not well educated and a poor person, was kept in dark and deprived of pension. Out of total period of 36 years of service, the petitioner served the respondent-Bank for 30 years, yet he has been deprived of pension.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, emphatically argued that the petitioner on account of his mental illness and family problems, tendered his resignation. However, he was formally/verbally retired on 31st March, 2002, before attaining the age of superannuation. It is further contended that a representation was addressed on 4th October, 2005, did not evoke any response. So also, the legal notice for demand of justice dated 12th October, 2007, was ignored impelling the petitioner to institution of the instant writ application.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the year 1995, Pension Scheme was made applicable in the respondent-Bank and he opted for the same, but his case was not processed for reasons best known to the respondent-Bank.

By an application for taking the additional documents on record, a copy of the appointment letter has been placed on record as Annexure-2, along with option form, copy of the letter dated 23rd September, 1998, and other letters, to substantiate the fact that the petitioner did submit his option form.

From the option form filed in the year 2010, it is reflected that the petitioner, accepting the terms and conditions of the Settlement/Joint Note dated 27th April, 2010, extending another option to join Pension Scheme, submitted his option form. The respondent-Bank vide communication dated 5th September, 2007, declined the option form for the same was not registered in the office and therefore, found the petitioner ineligible for pension.

By another communication dated 10th November, 2010, the petitioner was informed that the option form received from ''Rewari'' Branch of the respondent-Bank, was examined in the backdrop of the Terms of the Settlement dated 27th April, 2010, but the petitioner was not found eligible and therefore, his claim has been declined.

In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent-Bank has filed its counter-affidavit raising preliminary objections as to the very maintainability of the writ application for delay and laches. It is also pleaded that the petitioner did not submit any option form opting for Pension Scheme even upto to the extended date i.e. 31st March, 1997. The respondents have also placed on record a document indicating the details of the employees, who did not opt for Pension Scheme. Name of the petitioner appears at Serial Number 365 with PF Number 5671 with date of joining at Ramganj Bazar, Jaipur Branch, on 23rd July, 1972. Another communication dated 4th March, 1997, has also been brought on record to substantiate the fact that the deduction of the Bank''s contribution to the P.F. was to be made only upto 31st March, 1997, and thereafter, with effect from 1st April, 1997, no deduction towards Bank''s contribution to P.F. and in P.F. advices from the month of April, 1997, onwards only the amount of Member''s contribution and additional contribution, if any, was to be remitted to the P.F. Department. A copy of the response to the legal notice dated 12th October, 2007, has also been filed stating that in the year 1995, the respondent-Bank allowed an opportunity to opt for pension to its employees, but the petitioner did not opt for pension.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

Having noticed the fact that the respondent-Bank accorded another opportunity of option to the petitioner in the year 2010, therefore, the option exercised or not exercised in the year 1995, is of no relevance. However, the claim of the petitioner has been declined, treating him ineligible for entitlement of pension, as communicated vide communication dated 10th November, 2010 (Annexure-6). The counsel for the respondent-Bank was called upon to furnish the reasons on the basis of which the petitioner was adjudged ineligible for pension.

In response, the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, has filed an additional affidavit enclosing therewith memorandum dated 27th April, 2010, between the Indian Banks'' Association on behalf of the Managements listed in the Schedule and their Workmen represented by Bank Karmachari Sena Mahasangh.

Referring to the contents of memorandum of settlement, the respondent-Bank, has relied upon the Terms of the Settlement, which specifically incorporated the terms and conditions under which the exercise of option to join the Pension Scheme was made admissible. Terms of Settlement dated 27th April, 2010, relevant to the controversy raised herein, reads thus:-

"(1) All workmen employees who are in the service of the bank as on the date of this Settlement who exercise option to join the Pension Scheme in terms of this Settlement will contribute from their arrears on account of wage revision in terms of the Settlement between the parties dated 27th April 2010 an amount of Rs. 878 crores towards their share in the amount of Rs. 1800 crores offered by the Union towards 30% of the estimated funding gap of Rs. 6000 crores. The said amount is worked out @ 2.8 times of the revised pay for the month of November 2007, for individual workmen employees.

(2) Another option for joining the existing Pension Scheme shall be extended to those employees who:-

(I) (a) were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks/26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and continue in the service of the bank on the date of this Settlement;

(b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer, to become a member of the Pension Fund and

(c) authorize the Trust of the Provident Fund of the bank to transfer the entire contribution of the bank along with interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Pension Fund.

(II) (a) were in service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Bank/26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and retired after that date and prior to the date of his Settlement;

(b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer to become a member of the Pension Fund and

(c) refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of the banks contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon received by the employee on retirement together with his share in contribution towards meeting 30% of Rs. 3115 crores which is estimated and reckoned as the funding gap for those eligible under Clause 2(II), 2(III) and 2(IV) of this agreement. On an individual basis, the payment over and above the bank''s contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon has been worked out at 56% of the said amount of bank''s contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon received by the employee on retirement.

(III) The family of those employees who were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Bank/26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India retired that date and died will be eligible for family pension, provided -

(a) the family of the deceased employee exercise option in writing within 60 days of the offer to become a member of the Pension Fund and

(b) refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of the bank''s contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon received by the deceased employee on retirement together with his share in contribution towards meeting 30% of Rs. 3115 crores which is estimated and reckoned as the funding gap for those eligible under Clause 2(II), 2(III) and 2(IV) of this agreement. On an individual basis, the payment over and above the bank''s contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon has been worked out at 56% of the said amount of bank''s contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon received by the employee on retirement.

(IV) The family of those employees who were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks/26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India, but have died while in service of the bank after that date will be eligible for family pension, provided -

(a) the family of the deceased employee exercises an option in writing within 60 days of the offer to become a member of the Pension Fund and

(b) refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days mentioned above, the entire amount of the bank''s contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon received upon death of the employee together with his share in contribution towards meeting 30% of Rs. 3115 crores which is estimated and reckoned as the funding gap for those eligible under Clause 2(II), 2(III) and 2(IV) of this agreement. On an individual basis, the payment over and above the bank''s contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon has been worked out at 56% of the said amount of bank''s contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon received on death of the employee."

A glance of Clause 2(II)(a) would reveal that it included all workmen-employees who were in service of the bank prior to 29th September, 1995, in case of Nationalized Banks/26th March, 1996, in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and retired after that date and prior to the date of this Settlement i.e. 27th April, 2010. From the contents of the Terms of Settlement, it is also reflected that the option for joining the existing Pension Scheme was extended only to four categories of the employees as detailed out under Clause-I to IV. Sub-Clause (I) of Clause 2 of the Terms of Settlement has been made applicable to the workmen-employees, who were in the service of the Bank prior to 29th September, 1995, in case of Nationalized Bank/26th March, 1996, in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and continued in the service of the bank on the date of this Settlement whereas sub-clause (II) of Clause-2 includes the employees, who were in service of the bank prior to 29th September, 1995, in case of Nationalized Bank/26th March, 1996, in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and retired after that date and prior to the date of this Settlement. Sub-clause (III) of Clause 2 is applicable to the family of those employees, who were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September, 1995, in case of Nationalized Banks/26th March, 1996, in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India retired after that date and died will be eligible for family pension provided they fulfilled the conditions incorporated thereunder and sub-clause (IV) of Clause 2 is applicable to the cases of family of those employees, who were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September, 1995 in case of Nationalized Bank/26th March, 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India, but have died while in service of the bank after that date will be eligible for family pension subject to conditions stipulated therein.

Thus, it is evident that the petitioner''s case is not covered under any of the four clauses of the Terms of Settlement dated 27th April, 2010.

Even if, the case of the petitioner was to fall within sub-clause (II)(a) of Clause 2 of the Terms of Settlement, as argued; he is not entitled for pension for the petitioner was though in the service prior to 26th March, 1996, but he did not retire from service rather he resigned from the service on 31st March, 2002. The Terms of Settlement do not cover the cases of employees, who had tendered resignation. Therefore, the action of the respondent-Bank in declining the claim of the petitioner for pension cannot be faulted.

Since the case of the petitioner is not covered under the Terms of Settlement dated 27th April, 2010, in the backdrop of which his option was sought, and therefore, his claim for pension cannot be sustained.

For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

In view of the final adjudication on the writ application, the stay application stands closed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.