Raunki Lal vs Punjab National Bank and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—The petitioner joined the respondent-bank as Peon/Daftri at Amritsar and retired on 30.06.2004 on attaining the age of 60 years. In the year 2005 he suffered chronic depression and was under continuous treatment for a period of six years. In December, 2010 the son of the petitioner came to know that there is a pension scheme for the employees of the Punjab National Bank and went to the office of the respondent-bank at Amritsar as to why his father was not getting pension. He was told that since the scheme was floated in August 2010, the last date for giving option was over and, therefore, nothing could be done to grant him pension. When he asked why his father was not made aware of the scheme he was informed that the pension scheme and its closing date were published in the newspaper. The son of the petitioner requested the Regional Manager of the respondent-bank at Amritsar branch to grant pension to his father since his condition was awful but he was sent back with an assurance that they would do something. Thereafter the son of the petitioner has sent various representations, reminders etc. through e-mail and the Customer Care Centre of the respondent bank vide e-mail dated 09.02.2011 asked the authorities to look into the matter urgently with a copy to the son of the petitioner but nothing was done. Ultimately on 24.02.2012 the petitioner received a letter from the Assistant General Manager, Circle Office, Mcleod Road, Amritsar through speed post informing him that since he did not exercise his option for pension within a stipulated period between 27.08.2010 to 25.10.2010, therefore, his request cannot be considered. When nothing was done by the respondent-bank despite repeated reminders the petitioner was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 26.11.2012 (Annexure P-10) on it but no decision has been taken thereon as yet. The petitioner has further averred that his case is fully covered by the PF and Pension Circular No. 8/10 dated 16.08.2010(Annexure P-12). On 27.4.2010, 9th Bi-Partite Settlement took place between the Indian Banks Association and the representatives of Employees Unions and Officers Association to opt for the pension scheme. Option was also given to previously retired employees to switch over pension plan if they wanted within two months of the date of offer i.e. from 27.08.2010 to 25.10.2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is not a case where the petitioner failed to exercise the pension option after being informed by the bank but it is a case where the petitioner was not at all informed by the bank with regard to exercising the pension option which is otherwise the requirement of law and cannot be ignored. He has argued that the action of the respondents in not granting pension to the petitioner on the ground that he did not opt for the same within the stipulated period is highly discriminatory.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that this hyper-technical defence does not lie in the mouth of the respondent-bank more particularly in view of para 10 of the memorandum of settlement, which is quoted herein below:--

Incumbents Incharge of Branches/Divisional Heads of HO Divisions/Departments and Circle Heads of Circle Offices are requested to bring the contents of the Circular to the Notice of all Staff Members working at their Branch/Office and display the instructions on the Notice Board of the Branch/Office and suitably inform about the same to the employees/officers who have retired from their Branch/Office or also the employees on sabbatical leave/under suspension/gone abroad/long leave/unauthorizedly absent, etc. at the last given/available address. Employees/Officers on deputation to other Banks/Departments be also informed at their present office of posting. They are also requested to extend necessary assistance to the retired employees/family members in the matter.

As per the counsel for the petitioner, even if the petitioner had not submitted his option within the stipulated period, under the above mentioned clause, it was incumbent upon the respondent-bank to have informed him about the same and, considering the fact that he retired as a Class IV employee i.e. Peon/Daftri, rendered him necessary assistance to enable him to claim his rightful dues. Rather, the respondent-bank callously refused to make the due payment inspite of the fact that the petitioner made numerous representations and had even issued legal notice.

Counsel for the respondent has argued that the respondent-bank had given a public notice of the memorandum of settlement and had, thus, fulfilled its obligation.

In my opinion, the argument is absolutely misconceived, in view of clause 10 quoted above. The reply betrays a callous dis-regard for the rightful dues of its employees by the respondent-bank. It has been repeatedly held that pension is not a bounty but is a right of an employee where the regulation allows the same, and for a public sector body especially that which deals in money and presumably knows its importance, this unlikely defence is highly unpalatable. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to compute the pensionary dues of the petitioner and pay the same to him within a period of three months. I am tempted to order payment of interest on the arrears at prime lending rate to be compounded quarterly and even award penal interest, which no doubt the bank would have considered itself entitled to recover from a similarly obdurate borrower. However, I desist from doing so and order simple interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date the amount fell due till the date of payment.