IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10/01/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI
W.P.NO.9445 OF 2001
V.Jeyaraman ..Petitioner
-Vs-
Indian Bank
represented by
The General Manager (D.H.R.)
Co-Personnel Department
31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 1. ..Respondent
Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records
relating to the impugned proceedings dated 29.03.2001 of the respondent; to
quash the same as illegal and to direct the respondent to make the petitioner
a member of the pension scheme as per the option exercised by him on
18.01.1996.
!For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan
For Respondent : Mr.Vijayan for
: M/s.King & Patridge
:ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the respondent
dated 29.03.2001, under which the respondent has intimated the petitioner that
he is not eligible for pensionary benefits. It is the petitioner’s case that
he joined the respondent bank on 26.06.1978 as a Clerk and retired from the
services of the bank on 31.12.2000 under “Voluntary Retirement Scheme”. While
he was working in the Kodambakkam Branch of the Indian Bank, there was a
Pension Scheme called “I.B. Pension Scheme Regulation”, under which a
proposal for voluntary retirement was directed to be opted by the intended
employees of the bank on or before 26.01.1996. It is his further case that on
18.01.1996, he exercised his option to become a member of the said Pension
Scheme and his option letter was despatched to the Pension Department along
with the option letter of one Pandian, who was the Chief Manager in the
respondent bank at that time. Subsequently, he voluntarily retired from the
services of the bank with effect from 01.01.2001. It is also his case that
though the petitioner requested the respondent bank to include his name in the
Pension Scheme, it was refused by the respondent. The respondent’s case is
that, the petitioner did not obtain the signature of the Branch Manager/Head
of the Department; he did not send the proposal before the cut off date viz.,
26.01.1996 and that such proposal was not received by it. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the proposal was sent by the petitioner in accordance with
the Pension Scheme. It is admitted by the respondent that the proposal, in
respect of Pandian, was sent on 18.01.1996 and he being the Chief Manager and
Head of the Department, as per the Pension Scheme, he ought to have sent the
proposal of the writ petitioner also.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Mr.K.V.Ananthakrishnan learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would state that under the Pension Scheme, which is the beneficial
Scheme, the proposal should be sent before the cut off date namely,
26.01.1996, with the attestation of the Branch Manager/Head of the Department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would also state that when the proposal in
respect of Pandian, who was the Chief Manager in the respondent bank at that
time, was attested by the Branch Manager by name P.Geetha, who was working
under Pandian, the same Branch Manager ought to have attested the proposal of
the petitioner also and there is absolutely no justification for the
respondent to contend that the proposal of the petitioner was not sent in
accordance with the Pension Scheme. It is further stated by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that it cannot be said that the respondent has not
received the proposal at all. Apart from the fact that the petitioner had
been making representations and reminders to the respondent bank regarding the
proposal sent by the petitioner, the Federation of Indian Bank Employees’
Unions, by it’s letter dated 25.03.1998, had clearly brought to the notice of
the respondent bank that on 18.01.1996 when the proposal of Pandian was sent,
the proposal in respect of Jeyaraman (petitioner) was also sent to the Pension
Department. In both the cases, P.Geetha, the Branch Manager, had attested the
proposal and therefore there is no justification at all for denying the
benefit of the Pension Scheme to the petitioner. In support of his case,
learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of the “Letters Inward
Register” maintained by the Bank itself, wherein it is stated that “on
18.01.1996, the option letters of Mr.Jayaraman and Mr.Pandian were forwarded”.
3. On the other hand, Mr.Vijayan learned counsel appearing for the
respondent bank would contend that the petitioner did not exercise his option
under the Pension Scheme. Learned counsel also relies upon the Attendance
Register maintained by the bank to show that on 18.01.1 996 the petitioner was
on leave while Pandian, the Chief Manager, attended the bank and the Branch
Manager attested his proposal. The copy of the computerised statement filed
by the respondent bank, which is available at page No.10 of the typed set of
papers, would show that all the proposals were sent after the cut off date and
it is not known as to how the petitioner’s proposal alone was not sent.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies upon a
Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in the case
reported in Allahabad Bank & Others Vs. Surendra Kumar Mishra (200 3-II-LLJ
Pg.373) to contend that “an employee of a bank cannot be made to lose pension
benefit for the banks inability to trace the option form”. He also relies
upon another judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in the case
reported in Dasu Subba Lakshmi Vs. Indian Bank, Chennai & Others
(2003-II-L.L.J.Pg.459) to contend that ” the banks’ plea of non-receipt of the
option form should not be sustained”. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
relies upon another judgment of the Patna High Court rendered in the case
reported in Kishun Lall Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, UCO Bank & Others
(2002-III L.L.J.Pg.157), wherein it was held that “if the option letters were
not received in the Zonal Office or Head Office, the employee cannot be at
fault”. In that case a direction was also issued to the bank to consider the
proposal submitted by the employee.
5. In the present case, learned counsel for the respondent bank would
state that he is unable to produce any record regarding the proposal submitted
by the petitioner, since it relates to the period 1996 and not traceable. But
on the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner produced before this
court various documents, including the option form stated to have been given
by the petitioner on 18.01.1996 attested by P.Geetha, whose designation at
that time is mentioned in the document as “Senior Manager, Kodambakkam
Branch”. The Federation of Indian Bank Employees’ Unions had also sent a
letter dated 25.03.1998 to the respondent bank stating that it has forwarded
the option given by Jeyaraman, along with the option giv en by Pandian, to the
Pension Department. Therefore I am of the view that the judgments stated
above and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would squarely
apply to the case on hand. In support of his case, learned counsel for the
respondent relies upon a letter dated 12.08.2002 of the said Pandian, in which
it is stated that “on perusal of records, I certify that my pension option
application datd 18.01.1996 was forwarded by my second line officer
Mrs.Geetha. I had not forwarded the said application of Mr.V.Jayaraman. My
application alone was sent.” I do not think that this letter is of any help to
the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, especially when the
said Pandian is no more. The contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent that P.Geetha is neither a Branch Manager nor Head of the
Department and therefore her attestation is of no use as per the Pension
Scheme, is also not acceptable for the reason that the respondent bank cannot
take a double stand. While accepting the option exercised by Pandian, which
was attested by P.Geetha, it is not known as to why the option exercised by
the petitioner and attested by the same person had not been accepted. The
Pension Scheme, being beneficial to the employees of the bank, the respondent
must have been more magnanimous towards it’s employees in extending the
benefits of the Scheme. The petitioner has put in nearly 22 years of service
in the respondent bank. Therefore I am of the considered view that the denial
of pension benefits to the petitioner by the respondent bank, is not
sustainable.
6. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is
directed to consider the option dated 18.01.1996 given by the petitioner. In
addition to that, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh proposal in
accordance with the Scheme to the respondent within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the
respondent bank shall consider both the proposals and pass necessary orders
extending the benefits of the said Scheme to the petitioner.
Vsl
To
Indian Bank
represented by
The General Manager (D.H.R.)
Co-Personnel Department
31, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1