Allahabad High Court
Central Bank Of India Constitued And ... vs Union Of India Through Secy.Ministry Of ... on 26 April, 2022
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
1. Heard Shri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, Advocate assisted by Shri Akash Deep Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the award dated 06.01.2010 passed by the Opposite Party No.2 contained in Annexure No.6 may kindly be issued.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No.4 (Smt. Munni Devi) was working at Central Bank of India Cantt. Road Branch, Lucknow on the post of Peon and she retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2001. He further submitted that in the year 1996, the petitioners implemented the pension policy for their bank employees under Employees Pension Regulation 1995 and called options from its employees, but respondent No.4 has not made any option and after retirement, she claimed pension and her claim was denied on the ground that she never opted for pension scheme. He further submitted that due to technical error acknowledgment was issued for acceptance of pension policy. He also drew attention of the Court on the annexures of the writ petition, those are the internal correspondence, in which, it is mentioned that respondent No.4 has not opted pension. He further submitted that grievance of the respondent No.4 was referred to the Industrial Tribunal and claim was filed before the respondent No.2 claiming pension from the bank on her retirement in pursuance of the Employees Pension Regulation 1995, the claim of the respondent No.4 was contested by the petitioners by filing written statement for denying the contents made by the respondent No.4 in her claim statement and submitted that respondent No.4 was not entitled to get pension as she had not opted the pension scheme during the course of her service, but due to technical error of the software in the Computer system of the Bank at the initial stage, acknowledgment of pension scheme was issued to person who had not opted for the same, but all these facts were not considered by the Industrial Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Others vs. Mehar Singh reported in Civil Appeal No.7682 of 2009 and submitted that merely because the Bank treated the respondent No.4 for a good long period as pension optee would by itself create no right in the respondent No.4, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that respondent No.4 (Smt. Munni Devi) was working at Central Bank of India Cantt. Road Branch, Lucknow on the post of Peon and she is not qualified or well educated and she depends on the record of the Bank. Respondent No.4 opted the pension scheme and acknowledge was issued, but after retirement, she was being deprived, then she made a claim and issue was rightly decided by the Presiding Officer (Central Industrial Tribunal). He further submitted that ground of denial of pension is that due to technical error, acknowledgment of pension option was issued, but neither its rectification was issued by the Officers of the Bank nor departmental action was taken against arraying officer of the Bank. He further submitted that judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Punjab National Bank & Others vs. Mehar Singh (supra) is not applicable in the present case. Admittedly, in the aforesaid case the employee gave his option beyond the cut off date, but in the present case, it is admitted case of the petitioners that acknowledgment was issued for opting pension within cut off date due to technical error, but it was neither rectified any point of time nor any disciplinary action was taken against arraying officers, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by respondent No.2 (Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal) and petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.4, it is admitted case of the petitioner-Bank that pension scheme was issued in the year 1996 and acknowledgment of pension option was issued to the respondent No.4 and after superannuation, respondent No.4 had claimed, but her pension facility was denied on the ground that acknowledgment was issued due to technical error in the software of the computer system at the initial stage, due to which, acknowledgment of pension were inadvertently issued to even those (including the respondent No.4) who had not opted for pension, but in the pleadings no where it is mentioned that any rectification was issued by the Bank in relation to the technical error for issuing acknowledgment of the pension option at any point of time and no action was taken against arraying officers as the pension scheme is issued for the welfare of the employees of the Bank, therefore, once the acknowledgment was issued and it was never rectified for the long term, then it cannot be said that respondent No.4 is not entitled for pension. Hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
7. Consequently, the writ petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed.