Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pyare Lal Mehta vs M.D. & Ceo on 4 January, 2023
Bench: Amjad Ahtesham Sayed, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8131 of 2021 Date of decision : 04.01.2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Pyare Lal Mehta Petitioner
Versus
M.D. & CEO, UCO Bank Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. A. Sayed, Chief Justice Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner r to ____________________________________________________ : Mr. Udit Shaurya Kaushik, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner is a retired bank employee, who is seeking direction to the respondents to release him pension as per his option.
2. The case put forth by the petitioner is that he joined service of the respondent-bank on 10.04.1987. In the year 1994, the respondent-bank had given its employees a proforma application to opt for the Pension Scheme, authorizing the respondent-bank to transfer respondent's contribution to the pension account. On 30.09.1994, petitioner opted for becoming a member of bank's ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:53 :::CIS 2 pension scheme. The option, so exercised by him, authorized the respondent-bank to transfer contribution of the bank i.e. employer's share to the Provident Fund alongwith interest accrued thereupon to .
the appropriate Pension Fund. The grievance of the petitioner is that upon his superannuation on 30.09.2020, he was though eligible for monthly pension w.e.f. October, 2020, however, the monthly payable pension from October, 2020 onwards and the amount due on account of commutation had not been paid to him. Hence, he has preferred
3. to instant writ petition primarily seeking release of his pension.
In its defence, the respondent-bank has submitted that UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 were notified on 29.09.1995. The bank had issued a circular dated 14.10.1995 which set out the applicability of the 1995 Pension Regulations and also provided for procedure to opt for the pension by serving/retired/family of deceased employee. As per Regulation 3(3)(b) of UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, the petitioner had to exercise an option in writing within 120 days from the date of notification of Pension Regulations, 1995. According to the respondent-bank, no pension option form alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner is available in the bank record. Therefore, the petitioner has to be treated as a non-pension optee and for this reason, his claim for pension cannot be considered.
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:53 :::CIS 34 After hearing learned counsel on both sides and on going through case record, we find force in petitioner's claim of pension.
This is for the following reasons :-
.
4(i) Vide circular dated 27.05.1994, the respondent-bank had introduced UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1993. The 1993 Pension Regulations contain enclosures/Annexures providing for submission of option forms by the employees who were in the service of the bank at the relevant time. The option was to be submitted on or before 30.09.1994.
4(ii) to On 14.10.1995, UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 came into force. The 1995 regulations superseded earlier regulations. Clause 6 of circular dated 14.10.1995 (Annexure R-2) pertained to options already exercised by the employees in terms of earlier pension regulations circulated on 27.05.1994. Clause 6 of the 1995 Regulations reads as under :-
"6. OPTION EXERCISED EARLIER :
6. 1. However, the options already exercised by the retirees and the employees in Annexure III or IV as the case may be (Annexure to our circular No. CHO/PMG/19/94 dated 27.5.94) are valid and effectual. (Regulation 3 (9). They need not send any fresh option forms. Such of those who have already submitted the Form 1 or 2 as the case may be (i.e., Application for commutation of pension subject to Medical Examination or without Medical Examination as per circular No. CHO/PMG/32/94 dated 14.11.94) and the Medical Certificates wherever applicable need not submit any fresh Form 1 or Form 2 or the Medical Certificate.::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:53 :::CIS 4
6. 2. Such of those who have ceased to be in service and not yet submitted the Form 1 or Form 2 or the Medical Certificate have to complete submission of the same. For this purpose the Forms No. 1, 2 and the Format of the Medical Certificate already circulated under cover of our .
circular No. CHO/PMG/32/94 dated 14.11.94 may be used by the optees concerned."
A reading of the above clause makes it evident that the option already exercised by an employee pursuant to the circular dated 27.05.1994 was to be treated as valid and effective under the 1995 Regulations as well. The employee who had exercised option in terms 4(iii) r to of circular dated 27.05.1994 was not to submit fresh option under 1995 Pension Regulations.
The above aspects are not even in dispute. The case of the respondent-bank is that the petitioner had not submitted any pension option in terms of circular dated 27.05.1994. Hence his case does not fall under Clause 6 of 1995 Pension Regulations. That the petitioner was required to furnish option under the circular dated 14.10.1995 in order to be considered as a pension optee. According to the respondents, no pension option form alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner is available in the bank record, hence the petitioner is not eligible for grant of pension.
4(iv) It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he had not furnished any option under the 1995 Pension Regulations/Circular dated 14.10.1995. Petitioner's case is that he having exercised option ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:53 :::CIS 5 under the 1993 Pension Regulations is covered under Clause 6 of 1995 Pension Regulations. The question thus to be determined is as to whether the petitioner had opted for pension in terms of the circular .
dated 27.05.1994 or not.
We find from the record that the petitioner had opted for pension on 30.09.1994. This becomes apparent from perusal of Annexure P-2 (Colly) which are pension calculation sheets of the petitioner, prepared by the respondents. In this official document of the respondent-bank, petitioner is shown to have exercised pension option on 30.09.1994 in terms of 1993 Pension Regulations circulated on 27.05.1994. Neither there is any rebuttal nor there is any challenge to this set of document by the respondent-bank. The petitioner has also placed on record as Annexure P-3 (colly) his provident fund statement of accounts, prepared by the respondents for different periods. These documents reflect that the respondent-bank had acted in accordance with and in furtherance of the petitioner's pension option exercised on 30.09.1994 & had transferred the employer's share/contribution in petitioner's provident fund account alongwith interest and subsequent employer's contributions have been made to the pension fund. The documents have not been refuted by the respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:53 :::CIS 65. In light of the facts demonstrated by the documents on record and in view of Clause 6.1 of the circular dated 14.10.1995, the petitioner has to be construed as a pension optee and that he had .
exercised option for pension on 30.09.1994 in terms of the circular dated 27.05.1994 i.e. 1993 Pension Regulations.
Accordingly, we allow this writ petition. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as pension optee in terms of circular dated 27.05.1994 read with Clause 6 of circular dated 14.10.1995.
of 8 weeks from today.
r to The follow up action be carried out by the respondents within a period The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.
( A. A. Sayed ), Chief Justice 4th January, 2023 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua ), Judge ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2023 20:32:53 :::CIS