Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sankar Lal Sikdar vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 March, 2023
March 21, 2023 (116) ARDR WPA 26067 of 2022 Sankar Lal Sikdar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Adv. Soni Ojha, Adv. Subhomay Patra, Adv. Taraknath Jaiswal, ...for the petitioner.
Adv. Rajib Kumar Acharyya, ...for the UOI.
Adv. Sreemoyee Mitra, ...for the PNB.
The petitioner is a retired employee of United Bank of India, which has now merged with the Punjab National Bank (PNB). On January 31, 2018 the petitioner retired from his services. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite being a pension optee, the petitioner has not been granted pension month by month by the employer bank. The petitioner prays for arrears of pension be granted from February 1, 2018 (being the date succeeding date of retirement of the petitioner).
Ms. Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that page 15 of the writ petition clearly clarifies the issue. In United Bank of India's own documents the petitioner has been shown to be a pension optee. She further submits that the fact that the Contributory Provident Fund dues have been paid to the petitioner without deducting thirty per cent of the funding gap cannot be an issue that should be held 2 against the petitioner. The petitioner has all along stated that the retiral benefits should be granted to the petitioner upon deducting of all the dues of the bank.
Ms. Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank/PNB submits that the petitioner cannot be granted pension since he was not a pension optee. The recording made on the document annexed at page 15 of the writ petition is by mistake. She produces documents of PNB to show that the petitioner is a provident fund optee and not a pension optee.
She further submits that since the petitioner was a provident fund optee, the petitioner was paid the entire amount of provident fund dues by only deducting the personal loan that was taken by the petitioner. No amount was deducted for commutation of the pension. She submits that once an employee became a member of the family pension fund scheme as per the provisions of the settlement/joint note he/she ceases to be a member of the Contributory Provident Fund and irrevocably authorises the bank/trustees of the Contributory Provident Fund to transfer the entire contribution of the bank along with the entire interest accrued thereon to the credit of the pension fund for which it has been credited. The bank is also authorised to transfer an amount equivalent to 2.8 times of the revised pay for the month of November, 2007 representing the share of thirty per cent contribution from the arrears payable to 3 the petitioner on account of wage revision as per the bipartite settlement/joint note dated April 27, 2010 towards the funding gap.
In the present case the petitioner has been handed over the entirty of bank's contribution. Also, thirty per cent contribution that should have been paid by the petitioner by deduction of 2.8 times of the revised scale of pay for the month of November, 2007 has also not been deducted.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties and materials placed on record, this Court finds that whether or not the petitioner applied to a being pension optee he was shown to be a pension optee by the bank in 2016 as will appear from page 15 of the writ petition.
This Court also finds that the petitioner has accepted the entirety of the contribution made by the employer in the provident fund scheme. Furthermore, there is no averment in the writ petition which shows that 2.8 times of the revised pay for the month of November, 2007 has been deducted from the benefits received by the petitioner and paid as thirty per cent funding gap in the pension fund. However, this Court is of the view that justice will be sub served in the event the petitioner is given an opportunity to make a representation before the authority concerned within four weeks from date for being considered to be a pension optee. Such representation will be considered by 4 the authority concerned within four weeks thereof giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The documents annexed at page 15 of the writ petition will be taken into consideration while disposing of the representation of the petitioner.
Needless to mention that the petitioner will state in the representation that he would be willing to refund the employer's share of the provident fund contribution as well as will be willing to pay 2.8 times of the revised pay for the month of November, 2007 as thirty per cent of the funding gap for the pension scheme. In the event such unequivocal statements are made by the petitioner in the representation, the petitioner's prayer shall be considered and a reasoned order shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks of passing thereof.
With the directions aforesaid, WPA 26067 of 2022 is disposed of.
All parties shall act on the serve copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.
(Lapita Banerji, J.)