JUDGMENT
J.M. Malik, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondent be directed to extend the ex-gratia payment of retirees of the Punjab National bank and bring them at par with other Government Departments and PSUs. It is pointed out that the petitioner had made a representation before the respondent which was rejected vide order dated 30.06.2006.
2. I have heard both the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the bank started paying pension w.e.f. 1995. This is an indisputable fact that the petitioner retired in the year 1985. However, the banks are granting ex-gratia in the sum of Rs. 300/- per month plus dearness allowance to all those persons who had retired prior to 1995. The case of the petitioner comes into that category.
3. The counsel for petitioner was asked to show any rule or notification which entitles the petitioner to get more ex-gratia, DA allowance etc. than the one specified by the respondents. Firstly, he argued that Central Board of Employees are getting ex-gratia in the sum of Rs. 500/-. However, that rule is not applicable to the petitioner and all others who had retired from the bank prior to 1995. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards pension structure (137) and quoted reservations of Finance Ministry (137.40), which is reproduced as hereunder:
137.40The proposal of the Ministry of Railways had not, however, found favor with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) primarily on the ground that the financial implications of payment of ex-gratia ranging from Rs. 375 to Rs. 750 per month to the 1.20 lakh CPF/SRPF beneficiaries would be in the region of about Rs. 125 crores per annum and that acceptance of the proposal would also lead to similar demands from the CPF beneficiaries in the public sector undertakings and autonomous bodies.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner opined that this provision is applicable to the petitioner.
5. I am unable to find force in this argument. This proposal was given by the Ministry of Railways. It does not state a word or syllable in respect of the persons who had retired from the banks prior to 1995. In absence of the requisite rules, the writ petition is not maintainable. The same is, therefore, dismissed in liming.