JUDGMENT
R.N. Prasad, J.
1. The petitioner was employee of the Bank. He was posted as Asstt. Manager at Cheriya Bariarpur Branch. The Bank came with a scheme allowing its employees to exercise option for pensionary benefit by September 30, 1994. According to the petitioner, he exercised option and filed petition to the aforesaid effect on September 27, 1994. He sought voluntary retirement and he voluntarily retired with effect from April 30, 2001. After retirement, he learnt that his petition for exercise of option was not considered and as such petitioner moved this Court for issue of direction to the respondents to accept pension option, Annexure-1, and to pay pensionary benefit.
A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein stand has been taken that no petition exercising option was filed by the petitioner, the same was not received in the zonal office nor in the Head Office and as such the case of the petitioner for pensionary benefit was not considered as pension optee.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Annexure-1 the employee’s copy of the petition filed by the petitioner which bears signature of the Branch Manager of the Bank. Annexure-2 is despatch register wherefrom it appears that option letter for pension of the petitioner and others were mentioned. Annexure-4 was written by the Manager of Begusarai Bank wherefrom it appears that petitioner had submitted his option for pension on September 27, 1994 and was duly forwarded and his representation was also forwarded. The said letter is dated March 19, 2001. Reminder was also sent vide Annexure-5. The Chief Officer of the Bank also sent letter dated June 15, 2001 stating therein that petitioner had submitted his option paper and he is again sending relevant papers saying that it is genuine case, Annexure-10. However, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Annexure-8 wherefrom it appears that letter was issued from the head office to the Regional Office stating that petitioner is not pension optee.
3. From the material available on record, as discussed above, this much is obvious that petitioner had exercised option and had filed petition to the aforesaid effect. In such a situation, it is difficult to accept the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not exercise option for pension. However, it may be case that said option paper was not received by the zonal office or the head office but for the laches on the part of employer of the respondent, the petitioner cannot be held to be at fault.
4. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of directing the authority concerned to consider the petition of the petitioner, -Annexure-1, and pass necessary order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.