Sibesh Majumder vs Punjab and Sind Bank and Others

Sanjib Banerjee, J.—The petitioner, who was awarded a punishment in the disciplinary proceedings and made to compulsorily retire from service sometime in 2005, complains of the pension due to the petitioner not being released.

The petitioner claims the pension pursuant to a memorandum of settlement of April 27, 2010 between the Indian Banks'' Association and the employees of banks under Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

There is no dispute that the petitioner was entitled to exercise an option after the said agreement or bipartite settlement became effective. There is also no dispute that the petitioner opted to receive pension and such request was received by the bank. By an internal note of September 23, 2010, the zonal office recommended pension being awarded to the petitioner and forwarded the recommendation to the head office.

The petitioner had substantial amounts due to him from the employer on account of provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment at the time of the petitioner''s compulsory retirement. Possibly due to the challenge by the petitioner to the order of punishment, the petitioner had not collected the payments due from the bank. However, at the time that the petitioner applied to opt for pension pursuant to the bipartite settlement of 2010, the petitioner also had substantial amount due from him to the bank in the house-building loan account and the staff overdraft account maintained with the bank. As a consequence of the amounts due from the petitioner to the bank in the two accounts being more than the amount due on account of provident fund and gratuity from the bank to the petitioner consequent upon the petitioner''s compulsory retirement, the Bank is a net creditor of the petitioner. The bank informed the petitioner by its letter of March 5, 2013 that persons who were compulsorily retired from service were not entitled to opt for pension under the relevant scheme. A copy of such letter of March 5, 2013 is appended to the affidavit-in-opposition, at page 120 thereof. The relevant letter is referred to at paragraph 3(xvii) of the affidavit-in-opposition and the bank has asserted in its affidavit that the letter was sent to the petitioner but the petitioner suppressed the same in the petition.

The statements in, inter alia, paragraph 3(xvii) of the opposition have been dealt with at paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-reply in the following manner:

"12. That the contents of the respondents being on the circular dated 10.8.2010, as made in paragraph 3 (xiv) (xvi)(xvii) of the said opposition are not applicable in the instant case for the reason that the said circular came into force on and from 10.8.2010 whereas, long before that the petitioner was compulsory retired service on 3.8.2005."(sic)

Since it is evident that the petitioner has not denied the receipt of the bank''s letter of March 5, 2013 by which the bank declined the pension that the petitioner had claimed and the petitioner has not questioned the basis of the bank''s denial within reasonable time, the present grievance cannot be entertained.

The petitioner seeks to assert that the relevant letter was not received by the petitioner. However, the petitioner is not permitted to make such submission in view of the admission of the receipt of such letter implicit from the affidavit-in-reply since the petitioner did not deny the assertion in the affidavit-in-opposition that the letter was served on the petitioner.

However, notwithstanding the petitioner not being entitled to the pension, the petitioner will be entitled to receive any money that may be due to the petitioner on account of provident fund or gratuity or leave encashment or otherwise upon the money outstanding from the petitioner to the bank being adjusted therefrom.

W.P. 211 (W) of 2016 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.