Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court

Divya Prakash Pathak vs The Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank on 25 August, 2022

Author: Mohit Kumar Shah

Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19881 of 2021
     ======================================================
     Divya Prakash Pathak Son of Late Chandra Bhushan Pathak, Resident of
     Village and Post - Maula Bagh, Arrah, P.S. - Nawada, Disst. - Bhojpur.

                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus

1.   The Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank Head Office Shri Bishnu Commercial
     Complex, NH-30, New Bypass, Near Bypass Service, Petrol Pump,
     Ashokchak, Patna, 800016, through its General Manager.
2.   The General Manager, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Shri
     Bishnu Commercial Complex, NH-30, New Bypass, Near Bypass Service,
     Petrol Pump, Ashokchak, Patna - 800016.
3.   The Regional Manager, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Regional Office, Shri
     Hariken Kumar Jain Trust Bhawan, Hari Ji Ka Hata, Arrah 802301.
4.   The Board of Directors, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank through its Chairman
     Shri Bishnu Commercial Complex, NH-30, New Bypass, Near Bypass
     Service, Petrol Pump, Ashokchak, Patna, 800016.
5.   The General Manager (HRD/Pension), Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank through
     its Chairman Shri Bishnu Commercial Complex, NH-30, New Bypass, Near
     Bypass Service, Petrol Pump, Ashokchak, Patna, 800016.
6.   The Chief Manager, Pension Cell, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank through its
     Chairman Shri Bishnu Commercial Complex, NH-30, New Bypass, Near
     Bypass Service, Petrol Pump, Ashokchak, Patna, 800016.
7.   The Branch Manager, Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Godhna Branch, Arrah.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr.Siyaram Pandey
     For the Respondent/s   :      Mr.Dr. Anand Kumar
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 25-08-2022

               The present writ petition has been filed for
 Patna High Court CWJC No.19881 of 2021 dt.25-08-2022
                                           2/7




         directing the respondents to make payment of the

         commuted value of pension to the petitioner

         herein, who is the son of the deceased employee

         of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Branch Office-

         Godhna, Ara, namely, Chandra Bhushan Pathak,

         who is stated to have died on 19.7.2021, after

         superannuating from service on 31.12.2020 while

         working on the post of Officer Scale-1.

                     The brief facts of the case are that the

         father of the petitioner was appointed in the Bihar

         Gramin Bank, which was later on named as

         Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank and he served the

         Bank to the full satisfaction of the Respondent

         authorities for a period of 32 years and finally,

         superannuated              on     31.12.2020,   whereafter   he

         applied for grant of post retiral benefits along with

         the commuted value of pension. It is further

         submitted that though the entire retiral dues

         including the pension were paid to the deceased-

         father of the petitioner, however, the commuted

         value of pension was not paid to the father of the

         petitioner, who ultimately died on 19.7.2021. It is
 Patna High Court CWJC No.19881 of 2021 dt.25-08-2022
                                           3/7




         further submitted that since the father of the

         petitioner had applied for commutation of pension,

         it is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to

         make payment of the same.

                     Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for

         the Respondent-Bank has submitted, by referring

         to the counter affidavit filed in the present case

         that the deceased father of the petitioner had

         applied for grant of pension on 10.9.2020, which

         was received at the Regional Office of the Bank at

         Ara on 23.10.2020, however, no application for

         commutation of pension was filed, nonetheless,

         the said application of the deceased father of the

         petitioner was processed and the admissible retiral

         dues were also paid, apart from pension being

         started, amounting to a sum of Rs. 42,793/- per

         month, which was paid to the deceased father of

         the petitioner till his death. The learned Senior

         Counsel for the Respondent-Bank has further

         submitted that the payment of pensionary benefits

         is governed by the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank

         (Employees) Pensions Regulations, 2018 (herein
 Patna High Court CWJC No.19881 of 2021 dt.25-08-2022
                                           4/7




         after referred to as the "Pensions Regulations,

         2018") as also the decisions taken by the Board of

         Trustees        of    the      Dakshin        Bihar      Gramin   Bank

         Employees Pension Fund Trust from time to time. It

         is submitted that as per the aforesaid Pension

         Regulations, 2018 of the Respondent-Bank, any

         employee/staff, who wants to opt for pension has

         to deposit entire contribution of employer's share

         with interest accrued thereon to become member

         of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank Pension Fund and

         then      only,      he     becomes           eligible   for   pension,

         however, considering the financial hardship being

         faced by the employee / staff after retirement and

         on humanitarian ground, the Respondent-Bank is

         releasing pension in favour of the retired employee

         / staff only after obtaining an undertaking /

         declaration from them to the effect that they would

         deposit employer share of employee provident

         fund organization, immediately after receipt of

         fund from employees provident fund organization,

         but commutation of pension is being granted by

         the Respondent-Bank only after receiving the
 Patna High Court CWJC No.19881 of 2021 dt.25-08-2022
                                           5/7




         employer's share from the employees provident

         fund      organization.           In    the     present       case,    the

         deceased father of the petitioner had submitted

         form for payment of employees provident fund

         organization amount and EPFO pension only on

         25.5.2021

, at Regional Office at Ara, which was forwarded to the head office at Patna on 26.5.2021, whereafter the deceased father of the petitioner had deposited the entire contribution of the employer's share of EPFO, amounting to a sum of Rs. 5,67,585/- on 15.7.2021, after receipt of the same from the employees provident fund organization and had therefore become member of the pension scheme. It is only then that the petitioner had submitted an incomplete application on 16.7.2021 for commutation of pension on behalf of his father, which was received by the Regional Office of the Bank at Ara. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the said application dated 16.7.2021 would show that the same neither contains the signature of the employee on his photograph pasted on the said application nor the Patna High Court CWJC No.19881 of 2021 dt.25-08-2022 6/7 same contains any date and other particulars, hence, while the said application was under

process for the purposes of rectification of the defects, the Regional Office of the Bank had received an information that the deceased father of the petitioner had died on 19.7.2021, who was hospitalized from past few days, thus, the aforesaid application for commutation of pension could not be processed further.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record from which it is apparent that an application for commutation of pension was filed only on 16.7.2021 and that too, by the petitioner herein on behalf of his deceased father, however, the same was incomplete in many respects including the deceased employee's signature being not present on his photograph, nonetheless, it is a fact that the deceased employee died merely after three days of submission of such application i.e. on 19.7.2021, leading to cessation of pension of the deceased father of the petitioner, hence, admittedly, Patna High Court CWJC No.19881 of 2021 dt.25-08-2022 7/7 commutation of pension could not be granted since payment of pension had stood discontinued on account of the death of the father of the petitioner, thus, in view of payable pension being not in existence, pension cannot be commuted in nihility, apart from the fact that the application for commutation of pension remained defective and the defects could not be cured on account of the death of the father of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner has not made out any case so as to warrant issuance of a direction upon the respondents to pay the commuted value of pension qua the deceased father of the petitioner, hence, the present writ petition, stands dismissed, being devoid of any merit.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Ajay/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          5.9.2022
Transmission Date       NA