Punjab National Bank & Others vs Shyam Lal Bhalla on 3 July, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                           L.P.A.No.99 of 2009 (O&M)


                                           Date of decision:3.7.2009


Punjab National Bank & others
                                                 ......Appellants
                                Vs.



Shyam Lal Bhalla
                                                   ...Respondent


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
        HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY



PRESENT: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the appellants.


                                ****


ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment of the learned Single

Judge allowing the claim of the respondent for pension.

2. The grievance of the respondent in the writ petition was that

pension scheme was introduced in the appellant- Bank with which the

respondent served for the requisite period, which was to be applicable on

exercise of option by a specified date. The respondent, however, exercised

option after delay of 5 months, on which ground the option was rejected. He

gave the explanation that he was on long leave and on that account he came

to know about pension scheme late.

3. The claim was contested by the Bank. It was submitted that
L.P.A.No.99 of 2009 -2-

exercise of option by a specified date was a part of the scheme itself and

the delay in exercise of option could not be condoned. Learned Single

Judge relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Usha Dogra

vs. Central Bank of India, 2003 (1) RSA 440 (DB) upheld the claim.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the scheme

became effective as soon as it was notified in the official Gazette and plea

that the employee did not know about the scheme could not be accepted. He

relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh

B.Chauhan Vs. Punjab National Bank and others (2005) 6 Supreme

Court Cases 262.

6. Even though, normally option is required to be exercised

strictly in terms of the scheme but in the given case where a valid ground

is made out for delay in exercise of option, hyper-technical stand cannot be

taken to deny pension which the employee may have earned and may be

eligible after completion of requisite period of service. This being the

situation, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the

learned Single Judge.

7. The appeal is dismissed.

                                                   (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                          JUDGE




                                                   (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
July 03, 2009                                            JUDGE
raghav

Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ……..Yes/No
L.P.A.No.99 of 2009 -3-
L.P.A.No.99 of 2009 -4-