Manipur High Court
Shri Laishram Bijoychandra Singh vs The General Manager on 27 July, 2022
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
[1]
SHOUGRA Digitally signed
by
KPAM SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA
DEVANAN SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2022.07.27
DA SINGH 10:08:01 +01'00'
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 855 of 2019
Shri Laishram Bijoychandra Singh, aged about 63 years, S/o
Late Gokulchand Singh, resident of Khurai Kongpal Laishram
Leikai, Tinsid Road, P.O. Lamlong & P.S. Porompat, Imphal East
District, Manipur.
...Petitioner
-Versus -
1. The General Manager, Personnel Department (Pension) 10
B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata - Pin - 700001;
2. The Chief Manager, (Pension) 10 B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata, Pin
- 700001;
3. The Executive Director - 1, U.C.O. - Bank Head Office, 108,
T.M. Sarani, Kolkata - 700001;
4. Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Agartala Zone, U.C.O. Bank,
Central Road, Agartala, West Tripura, Tripura - 799001.
.... Respondents
B E F O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH For the Petitioner :: Mr. H. Ishwarlal, Sr. Advocate For the respondents :: Mr. Th. Babloo, Advocate Date of Hearing :: 13-06-2022 Date of Judgment & Order :: 27-07-2022 JUDGMENT & ORDER [1] Heard Mr. H. Ishwarlal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
WP(C) No. 855 of 2019 Contd.../-
[2]
[2] The present writ petition had been filed with a prayer for issuing
a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the respondent No. 2 to pay the pensionary benefits and commutation w.e.f. 31-03-2016. [3] The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist in the United Commercial Bank (UCO), North- Eastern Division, Imphal Branch by an order dated 05-10-1997. While he was serving as an Assistant Manager, UCO Bank, Bishnupur Branch, the petitioner applied for pension option on 03-08-2010 by submitting duly filled up option form along with all the necessary/ related documents to the concerned authorities through the then Manager of UCO Bank, Bishnupur Branch namely, N.L. Singh. After submission of the pension option form, an amount equal to 2.8 times of his monthly salary i.e., Rs. 69,720/- was debited from the petitioner's monthly salary and credited to the pension fund as his share in the 30% contribution fund for payment of pensionary benefits. Thereafter, the authorities of the UCO Bank deducted a sum of Rs. 5,134/- from the monthly salary of the petitioner every month upto February, 2016 and in the month of February, 2016, a sum of Rs. 5003/- was deducted from his salary and the same were contributed to the pension fund for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner. [4] The petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 31-03-2016 as Manager of UCO Bank, Phubala Branch on attaining the age of superannuation. However, the petitioner did not received any pension after his retirement. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of payment of the petitioners' WP(C) No. 855 of 2019 Contd.../-
[3]pensionary benefits, the Chief Manager of UCO Bank (Head Office) at Kolkata wrote a letter dated 13-06-2016 stating, inter alia, that a sum of Rs. 15,50,938.33/- would be credited to the Parking Account of the petitioner as a full and final settlement of the Provident Fund contribution of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said amount is the amount contributed by the petitioner from his monthly salary as his contribution for payment of his pensionary benefits after he applied for availing pension. It has been stated by the petitioner that he did not take out or withdraw the said amount and that the said amount is still lying as Fixed Deposit amount under Account No. 26530310001424 at UCO Bank, Phubala Branch. [5] Mr. H. Ishwarlal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for availing pensionary benefits by submitting required option form along with other employees of the UCO Bank, Phubala Branch and that after submission of the option form, the authorities of the UCO Bank deducted the required amount from the monthly salary of the petitioner regularly as his share towards the pension contribution fund. It has also been stated that in respect of the other employees of the UCO Bank, who applied for availing pension along with the petitioner, the authorities of the UCO Bank released their pensionary benefits and all those persons who are similarly situated with the petitioner are enjoying their pensionary benefits. However, in respect of the petitioner, the authorities did not considered for payment of pensionary benefits to the petitioner and left out the petitioner from WP(C) No. 855 of 2019 Contd.../-
[4]enjoying such pensionary benefits by adopting pick and choose policy in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The learned senior counsel strenuously submitted that the petitioner is equally situated like the other employees of the UCO Bank, who opted for availing the pensionary benefits along with the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get similar pensionary benefits as are given to those employees. [6] Mr. Th. Babloo, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the authorities of the UCO Bank did not find the pension option form submitted by the petitioner on record and accordingly, the case of the petitioner for availing pensionary benefits was not considered by the authorities. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that after retirement of the petitioner, the authorities have released all the amount contributed by the petitioner by transferring it to the account of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed by him in the present writ petition. [7] The present writ petition was filed on 14-10-2019 and the respondents appeared before this court through their counsel on 21-02-2020. In the last more than two years after their appearance before this court and despite giving several opportunities to file their counter affidavit, the respondents choose not to file any counter affidavit and to contest the writ petition. Except for the brief submission made by the learned counsel on their behalf, the respondents did not deny or contest the submission or claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
WP(C) No. 855 of 2019 Contd.../-
[5]In such circumstances, this Court has no option but to construe that all the statements and claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition are all true and correct. Moreover, in the letter dated 29-11-2017 of the Deputy Zonal Head addressed to HO-PSD, Staff Pension Cell, Kolkata in connection with the pension option claimed by the petitioner, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner's monthly Bank contribution to pension as pension optee was deducted and that according to the forwarding letter through which option forms were forwarded to the Guwahat Zonal Office, it was found that four employees including the petitioner of Bishnupur Branch have given the pension option together.
[8] On careful examination of the aforesaid letter dated 29-11-2017 and also taking into consideration the undisputed fact that the authorities of the UCO Bank deducted the petitioner's monthly Bank contribution to pension fund from his monthly salary till his retirement, there is nothing to doubt that the petitioner have opted to join the pension scheme for availing pensionary benefits after his retirement and this Court is not inclined to accept the bald statement made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner did not opted to avail the pensionary benefits under the pension scheme. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed with the following directions -
i) The petitioner is directed to re-deposit the amount credited to his Parking Account as a full and final settlement of his Provident Fund contribution as mentioned in the letter dated 13-06-2016 of WP(C) No. 855 of 2019 Contd.../-
[6]
the Chief Manager, UCO Bank (Head Office) at Kolkata to the concerned authorities of the UCO Bank as early as possible;
ii) As and when the aforesaid amount is re-deposited by the petitioner, the respondents should promptly take up necessary steps for consideration and payment of the petitioner's entitled pensionary benefits w.e.f. 01-04-2016;
iii) The whole process for consideration and payment of all the entitled pensionary benefits of the petitioner should be completed within a period of four months from the date the petitioner re-deposited his Contributory Pension Amount as directed hereinabove.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of. Parties are to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
FR/NFR
WP(C) No. 855 of 2019 Contd.../-