Kerala High Court
P.Mohanan vs Central Bank Of India on 9 June, 2011
Author: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15696 of 2003(R)
1. P.MOHANAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SIDHARTHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :09/06/2011
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.15696 of 2003-R
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from service under Voluntary Retirement Scheme from the respondents Bank as Assistant Manager. This is a case where the option for pension submitted by the petitioner under the Bank's pension scheme has not been accepted and the Bank in Ext.P11 has taken the stand that the option statement submitted by the petitioner was not received.
2. The case of the petitioner is that by Ext.P1 the petitioner had submitted the option. Ext.P1 is dated 29.11.1994. At the relevant time, he was working as Sub Accountant at Chombala Branch. Ext.P2 is the further representation submitted by the petitioner requesting to include his name in the pension optee's list and to accord confirmation. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P11 order. Ext.P3 is relied upon by the petitioner to contend for the position that actually he had submitted the option in time. Ext.P3 is the confirmation of the Regional Office of the Bank with regard to the option statement given by the petitioner. It shows that the date of option is 29.11.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a further wpc 15696/2003 2 representation to the Chief General Manager as per Ext.P4. It was forwarded by the Regional Officer as evidenced by Ext.P5. Since the petitioner has not received any further communication, he approached this Court by filing O.P. No.22415/2002 wherein, the respondents were directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons stated in Ext.P11 cannot be treated as correct, in the light of Exts.P3 and P10 which will show that the petitioner has submitted the option within time.
4. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank.
5. What is mentioned in Ext.P11 is that "Thirteen staff members of Chambala branch, where plaintiff was working in the period September 1994 to January 1995 submitted their pension option as per procedure and their names have been included in the list of pension optees prepared at Regional Office, Cochin and Zonal Office, Chennai." It is also stated that Ext.P1 has not been received by the Branch where he was working. In para 4 it is further mentioned that the receipt of pension option has not been mentioned in the inward dak register of the Regional Office except a stamp, which is also not clear. Finally, it is mentioned that the petitioner has withdrawn both parts of provident fund, i.e. his own contribution till 31.3.2001 and Bank's contribution credited till 31.12.1996. wpc 15696/2003 3
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank invited my attention to Ext.R1(b) which is the list of employees who opted for pension scheme issued by the Bank. Ext.R1(a) is the circular issued by the Regional Office to all the branches wherein, the direction is to forward the option submitted by the employees upto 30.9.1994. Of course, the name of the petitioner is not included in Ext.R1(b). The question is whether it is a conclusive evidence to show that the petitioner has not submitted his option.
7. The petitioner has produced along with the reply affidavit, Ext.P14 circular, informing the persons concerned about the extension of time to submit option from 30.9.1994 to 30.11.1994. It appears that the same was extended by the Zonal Office. A reading of Ext.P3 shows the following: The same is issued by the Regional Office, Cochin to the Palakkad Branch of the Bank. What is mentioned as the subject is regarding option for pension by the petitioner. It is evident from Ext.P3 that what is forwarded is the copy of the option statement given by the petitioner, dated 29.11.1994. Evidently, therefore, the option statement had reached the Regional Office. Ext.P10 will show the further details of the same. Therein, the date of receipt of option letter by the Regional Office is mentioned as 1.12.1994 and it is mentioned against column No.3 that the wpc 15696/2003 4 petitioner is a "pension optee". It is further mentioned that "in the PF statement from ZO for March 1998 also the Bank's contribution has not been taken, which reveals that member is a pension optee." Learned Senior Counsel for the Bank further submitted that the petitioner has received the PF amount including the employer's contribution, which will show otherwise.
8. It appears that the petitioner had availed the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme and the benefits of the Provident Fund were disbursed to him accordingly. Therefore, what is required is only refund of the required amount, if it is found that he is an optee for pension. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the non payment of pension contribution by the employer from March 1998 onwards indicate that the petitioner had opted pension scheme and the fact that the contribution was not paid, is recorded in Ext.P10 also.
9. For all these reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and therefore, Ext.P11 is quashed. There will be a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as having opted the Bank's pension scheme and give the benefits under the scheme. Appropriate orders in this regard granting consequential benefits, will be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any further documents are wpc 15696/2003 5 to be forwarded by the petitioner for processing the application Ext.P1, the respondents are free to issue a communication regarding the same to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner may be paid interest for the delayed payment. The same will also be considered by the Bank and appropriate orders will be passed.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/
wpc 15696/2003 6
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.No.15696 of 2003-R
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
9th day of June, 2011.