IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
WRIT PETITION(C) NO.8402/2010
Date of Decision : March 14, 2011
RAJ BALA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K.G. Mishra, Adv.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks the benefit of a, “PF and Pension
Circular No. 8/2010”, issued by the respondent Bank on 16.08.2010,
in terms whereof, family members of employees who were in the
service of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995 but had died while in service
after that date but before 27.04.2010, would be eligible for family
pension. That circular, inter alia, granted the family members an
opportunity to exercise the option of receiving family pension instead
of Provident Fund. They were permitted to exercise this option
between 27.08.2010 and 25.10.2010. There was also a condition that
anyone exercising this option was also required to refund 156% of the
Provident Fund that had been disbursed to the deceased employee.
This refund was to be made between 26.10.2010 to 24.11.2010.
WP(C) No. 8402/2010 Page 1 of 5
2. The husband of the petitioner is stated to have died in
December 2008. It is also not in dispute that her husband was in
service of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995 and consequently, these two
conditions were met.
3. The petitioner also applied for grant of family pension on
27.09.2010 i.e. within the time prescribed. However, the amount, as
envisaged under the scheme, was not deposited by the petitioner
within the time granted. The time for making the deposit expired on
24.11.2010. It is stated that the petitioner was unwell during this
period, and therefore, could not deposit the same. In support, the
petitioner has produced a medical certificate purportedly issued by one
Ashoka Nursing Home, Loni, Ghaziabad, certifying that from
20.11.2010 to 28.11.2010, the petitioner was suffering from “viral
fever and vertigo”.
4. Counsel further states that in fact, the petitioner was not
obliged to take any steps towards deposit of the amount till the
appropriate advice quantifying the amount payable by his client was
given to his client in terms of paragraph 8 of the aforesaid Circular No.
8/2010. Paragraph 8 of the circular states as follows:
“The amount to be refunded by the retiring
employees/officers or their family members
(in case of deceased employees/officers)
who opt for Pension Option shall be advised
to the Branches separately for
advising/communicating the same to them.
However, the commuted value of pension
will be ascertained only after the pension
proposal is received from the
Branches/Circle Offices/HO Divisions (as per
the existing system for submission of
Pension Proposals).
WP(C) No. 8402/2010 Page 2 of 5
The commuted value will be value based on
next date of birth of the employee from the
date of commencement of Pension option
i.e. 27.08.2010.”
He also submits that looking to the said provision, even if
the medical certificate is not taken into consideration, the obligation of
the petitioner to deposit the amount never commenced because no
communication was received from the respondent quantifying the
amount payable by her.
5. It is the petitioner’s case that she also approached the
Bank on 6th December, 2010 when she was informed for the first time
that the last date for refunding the amount was 24 th November, 2010
and since the amount has not been refunded, therefore, she is not
entitled to the benefit of the Scheme.
6. It is also the petitioner’s case that she has always been
possessed with sufficient funds and can easily pay this amount, which,
according to her calculation, comes to about Rs. 3,44,570.68. Counsel
states that a larger amount has been continuously lying in the
petitioner’s name in the same bank.
7. To my mind, keeping in view the aforesaid paragraph 8 of
the Scheme, the only way in which the Scheme can be construed is
that the Bank was also obliged to communicate all the relevant
particulars with regard to the amount to be deposited by the petitioner
immediately on the making of the application exercising the option;
and it is only thereafter that the period for making the deposit would
begin to run. This is because, on the one hand, paragraph 8 of the
Scheme obliges the bank to compute the amount refundable, and to
WP(C) No. 8402/2010 Page 3 of 5
inform the applicant accordingly, without setting down any time limit
for doing so; on the other hand, not only is the applicant to refund the
amount within 30 days, he has to do so before 24.11.2010. If the
Bank itself considered it necessary to compute and inform the
applicant of the amount to be refunded by him, then, in the absence of
that information, any opportunity given to him to pay is meaningless.
Furthermore, for this Court to uphold the denial of the benefit of the
Scheme on the sole ground of not having deposited the amount before
the cut-off date of 24.11.2010 would amount to rendering compliance
of paragraph 8 optional on the part of the Bank. Paragraph 8 creates
a vested right in the applicant to be informed of the amount to be
deposited by him, and the Bank cannot be permitted to ignore it. The
only rational way to interpret the Scheme therefore, is that the
applicant has to first apply before 25.10.2010. Having done that, he
has to deposit the amount within 30 days after he is informed by the
Bank under paragraph 8 and not before.
8. Counsel for the respondent Bank is also unable to meet the
contention with regard to the obligation of the Bank to quantify and
communicate the amount which is to be deposited by the family
members of the deceased employee. It is, therefore, obvious that the
obligation of the petitioner to deposit the amount only arises once the
requirements of para 8 have been followed. Any other interpretation
would render clause 8 meaningless.
9. Under the circumstances, the respondent is directed to
properly compute the amount which has to be refunded by the
petitioner to the respondent bank in terms of its aforesaid circular No.
WP(C) No. 8402/2010 Page 4 of 5
8/10 dated 16th August, 2010, within four weeks from today. The
petitioner would thereafter be obliged to deposit the necessary amount
within 30 days of receipt of this intimation from the respondent. Once
that is done, the respondent will process the matter further and admit
the petitioner to family pension in terms of the Rules, within two
months.
10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.
MARCH 14, 2011
rd/sl
WP(C) No. 8402/2010 Page 5 of 5