Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pitha Singh vs Central Bank Of India And Ors ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:40413]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 606/2002
Pitha Singh Son of Shri Bhom Singh, aged about 52 years,
resident of Pali (Address: Shakti-Nagar (B), Pali).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Central Bank of India, through the Chief Manager (PRS),
Central Office, Chandramukhi Nariman Point, Mumbai.
2. Regional Manager Central Bank of India, Sansar Chandra
Road, Jaipur.
3. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Near Station Road,
Pali Marwar.
-----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Parihar
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order 10/09/2025
1. The present matter has been listed in the category of 'Oldest Cases for Early Disposal'.
2. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for taking certain documents on record has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
3. Keeping into consideration the documents as annexed along with the application, the same is allowed. The documents are taken on record.
4. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:
a) Writ petition be allowed.
b) Order/communication dated 8.6.2001 (Anne. 6)
may kindly be quashed and so also the respondents may kindly be directed to give regular pension to the petitioner from 1.4.2001.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:08:38 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:39:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40413] (2 of 10) [CW-606/2002]
c) Alternatively, it is prayed that if the Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that pension is not admissible to the petitioner, then the respondent Bank may kindly be directed to take back the petitioner in service.
d) Any other appropriate order which the circumstances of the case warrant, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
e) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.
5. The brief facts as averred in the petition are as under:
(i) The petitioner was appointed as a 'Guard' with the respondent Bank vide order dated 02.04.1984. At that point of time, there was no Pension Scheme in operation and it is only the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF) which was available to the employees. However, in the year 1994, a Pension Scheme was introduced and the petitioner too opted for the same vide his option letter dated 30.11.1994. However, the option of the petitioner was not acted upon instantly and contributions towards CPF were continued to be deducted from his salary till the month of December 1996.
(ii) Ultimately, from January 1997 onwards, the deduction of contribution was stopped which meant that the option of pension as exercised by the petitioner was accepted by the Bank. Even the Bank's contribution qua CPF was not deposited after 1996.
(iii) In the year 2001, a scheme for Voluntary Retirement in the name of 'Central Bank of India Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme of 2001') was introduced by the respondent Bank. The said scheme was valid only for 15 days i.e. from 22.02.2001 to 08.03.2001. As per Clause 6 (2) of the said Scheme, an employee seeking voluntary retirement was to be eligible either for CPF or pension, as per the option exercised by him/her.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:08:38 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:39:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40413] (3 of 10) [CW-606/2002]
(iv) In pursuance to the above scheme, the petitioner applied on 24.02.2001. As per his application, it was the specific condition that his voluntary retirement application be accepted only if his option for pension scheme is accepted by the Bank.
(v) The voluntary retirement application as submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the respondent Bank vide order dated 22.03.2001 and he was declared voluntarily retired with effect from 31.03.2001.
(vi) However, vide communication dated 08.06.2001 (Annex. 6), it was communicated by the Bank that as the petitioner was not a pension optee, his request in this regard could not be considered. It is the said communication dated 08.06.2001 which is under challenge in the present petition.
6. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had very well opted for pension wayback in the year 1994 and the same was even acted upon by the respondent Bank in so much as the deductions qua CPF contribution were stopped with effect from December 1996. The said stoppage of deductions itself was sufficient to prove that the bank did accept the pension option of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact that the petitioner had opted for pension and that his voluntary retirement application was also accepted with the said acceptance is clear from the fact that the application for VRS incorporating the said fact was certified by the respondent authorities. Hence, it could not have been concluded that the petitioner was not a pension optee. Communication dated 08.06.2001 is erroneous on the face of it.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:08:38 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:39:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40413] (4 of 10) [CW-606/2002]
8. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the PF statement (Exhibit-1) which reflects the deductions qua the PF contribution till the month of December 1996. Further, the Bank contributions qua PF are also reflected till the month of December 1996 only.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was a pension optee is also evident from the fact that the complete Bank's PF contribution amount was not paid to him on his retirement which, had he been considered to be a CPF contributory, would have been paid to him.
10. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that even though the petitioner once opted for pension in the year 1994, but then, vide communication dated 24.01.1996 (Annexure- R/1), he specifically submitted his desire to be shifted to CPF scheme.
11. Learned counsel further relied upon communication dated 02.02.1996 (Annexure-8) vide which the petitioner again requested for cancellation of his option for pension and for transferring the complete fund to his CPF account. He submits that communication dated 02.02.1996 has been placed on record by the petitioner himself and is rather admitted by him.
12. Counsel therefore submits that the option of pension even if exercised by the petitioner, was voluntarily withdrawn by him subsequently and hence, he could not have been termed to be a pension optee.
13. So far as the non-payment of the Bank's contribution of CPF amount at the time of petitioner's retirement is concerned, learned counsel submits that the same was very well deposited in the (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:08:38 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:39:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40413] (5 of 10) [CW-606/2002] petitioner's bank account on 27.09.2002 and was even accepted by him. Further, the petitioner used the said amount without any demur and it was only in the year 2017 for the first time when it was submitted in the reply to the application that the amount was deposited in his account without his consent. No objection was ever raised earlier.
14. Learned counsel further submits that all said and done, the present is a clear case of waiver, as in the year 2010 when again the new pension scheme was introduced, the petitioner voluntarily applied for the same and in pursuance to the same, he has even been awarded pension with effect from 27.11.2009. The arrears of pension were also paid to him and he is till date being paid the pension in accordance to the scheme of 2010.
15. Learned counsel submits that the Scheme of 2010 was applicable to only those employees who had not earlier opted for pension. The petitioner having applied in terms of Scheme of 2010 ipso facto meant that he accepted the fact of his not having opted for pension earlier. Further, the petitioner undertook all actions requisite in terms of the said Scheme. Furthermore, in terms of the said scheme, the petitioner was granted the pension with effect from 27.11.2009 and he never objected to the fact as to why the said pension was not granted with effect from 2001. Had the petitioner been under an impression that he was applying for the pension with effect from 2001, he definitely would have raised an objection on the pension been awarded with effect from year 2009 only. Therefore, the right whatsoever available to the petitioner had been waived by him and his acceptance of the scheme of 2010 amounts to a conscious acceptance by him.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:08:38 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:39:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40413] (6 of 10) [CW-606/2002]
16. Learned counsel lastly submits that both the acts of petitioner firstly, of accepting the amount of Rs.24,834/- deposited on 27.09.2002 and secondly, of applying in pursuance to the scheme of 2010 and accepting the pension with effect from 27.11.2009 amounts to a clear acquiescence and hence, the petitioner cannot now after having accepted the above, claim a pension with effect from the date of his retirement.
17. In support of his submissions, counsel relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of O.P. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; 2013 SCC Online Del 530.
18. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the fact of the petitioner having voluntarily applied under the Scheme of 2010 is totally incorrect as the petitioner was not even aware of the said scheme. No memo of such scheme was ever supplied to the petitioner. It was rather under an impression as made by the Bank-Authorities to the petitioner that he would be granted the pension with effect from 2001 that he submitted the application and even deposited the amount requisite to be held entitled for pension.
19. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was told that he was required to refund the PF contribution amount as paid to him and further 156% of the bank contribution so that the pension can be awarded to him and in pursuance to the same, he deposited the difference amount of Rs.78,438/- as demanded by the respondent-Bank. The same can in no terms be said to be an acquiescence as it was in total ignorance of the Scheme of 2010 that the form was filled up by the petitioner.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:08:38 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:39:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40413] (7 of 10) [CW-606/2002]
20. Learned counsel further submits that even if it is to be concluded that the petitioner had withdrawn his option of pension vide communication dated 02.02.1996, his application for voluntary retirement was definitely with a condition that the same be accepted only if his option of pension is accepted. If the bank had no intention to accept his option of pension, his acceptance of application for voluntary retirement was clearly bad. In the said eventuality, the order of acceptance of voluntary retirement deserves to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be permitted to continue in service.
21. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Ashit Chakraborty & Ors.; AIR 2023 SC 359.
22. So far as the acceptance of pension w.e.f. 27.11.2009 is concerned, learned counsel submits that while applying, the petitioner never undertook that he would withdraw the present petition. Meaning thereby, the rights whatever accrued to the petitioner wayback in the year 2001 did survive because of the pendency of the present petition and the acceptance of pension with effect from November 2009 cannot be termed to be an acquiescence.
23. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
24. What is admitted on record is that the petitioner at the first instance opted for a pension scheme in the year 1994 vide his option letter dated 30.11.1994. The same was admittedly not acted upon as the contributions towards CPF continued to be (Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:08:38 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:39:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40413] (8 of 10) [CW-606/2002] deducted till the month of December 1996. But then the said deductions were stopped being made from January 1997 and even the bank's contribution from January 1997 was not deposited. The same would definitely mean that the option of pension as exercised by the petitioner was accepted by the respondent bank at that point of time. The said is evident even from the fact that the bank's contribution was not paid to the petitioner at the time of his retirement.
25. But then, as is admitted, after the present writ petition been filed, the bank's contribution was deposited in the petitioner's bank account on 27th September 2002. The same was never ever objected to by the petitioner till the year 2017 when for the first time in reply to the application, it was submitted by the petitioner that the said amount was deposited in his account without his consent. But interestingly neither was the said amount ever tried to be refunded to the bank nor was any such request made by the petitioner ever.
26. Further, admittedly the New Pension Scheme was introduced for those employees who had not opted for the pension option earlier. The said new scheme was definitely applicable only to those employees. The petitioner not only applied under the said scheme but even filed a specific declaration to the effect that he has read and understood the terms of the settlement/joint note dated 27.04.2010 for extending the option to join the said pension scheme. It is an admitted fact that after the petitioner having opted in terms of the New Pension Scheme, has been awarded the pension with effect from 27.11.2009.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:08:38 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:39:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40413] (9 of 10) [CW-606/2002]
27. In the specific opinion of this Court, the opting of the petitioner for the New pension scheme definitely is a waiver of all of his earlier rights. If the petitioner asserts that he was a pension optee, he definitely could not have opted in the New Pension Scheme as the same was applicable only for those employees who had not earlier opted for pension. Further, the option under New Pension Scheme was not exercised by the petitioner while reserving any of his rights. Furthermore, the fact of the petitioner having opted for New Pension Scheme was not even brought on record by him ever. It is only in the year 2017 when the said documents were placed on record by the respondent bank that the petitioner, for the first time, averred that the bank contribution amount was deposited in his account without his consent.
28. In view of the above facts, the present is a clear case of waiver. This Court is of the opinion that even if any right of the petitioner survived earlier, the same was definitely waived on his filing up the application form in terms of the New Pension Scheme. Vide the same, the petitioner accepted himself to be a non- pension optee and hence now, after been awarded the pension in terms of the New Pension Scheme, he cannot claim that he was a pension optee from the inception and ought to have been granted the pension with effect from the date of his retirement.
29. So far as the judgment in Ashit Chakraborty (supra) relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same would be of no help to him as therein too the Court specifically held that the principle of waiver could be applied in case where there was conscious abandonment of existing legal right.
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:08:38 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:39:30 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:40413] (10 of 10) [CW-606/2002]
30. This Court is of the considered opinion that the present one is a clear case of conscious abandonment of an existing legal right.
31. In view of the above analysis, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present petition and the same is hence, dismissed.
32. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J 307-divya/-
(Uploaded on 11/09/2025 at 04:08:38 PM) (Downloaded on 11/09/2025 at 09:39:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)