IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 26TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 30523 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.P.THANKAPPAN NAIR, "SREYAS", KOYONKARA, THRIKARIPUR P.O., KASARAGOD-671310. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, CHANDERMUKHI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021. 2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, PENSION DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANDERMUKHI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021. 3. REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, POST BOX NO.2400 G.O.TOWERS, IIND FLOOR, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI-682 016. 4. REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, PB NO.5129 NO.2A, CRESCENT ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 30523/2006. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.2.2.99. P2. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.27.3.99. P3. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTGD.12.10.96. P4. COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.16.12.2000. P5. COPY OF THE REMINDER DTD.6.11.2001. P6. COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.8.11.2001 OF R3. P7. COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD.25.7.2006 TO R1. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DTED.12.8.2006. P9. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.17.2.2006 OF THE BANK. P10. COPY OF THE REGULATIONS. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30523 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 17th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's husband, K.P.Thankappan Nair, who was an employee of the 1st respondent bank died on 26.10.1987. After his death, the 1st respondent bank adopted the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1993, with retrospective effect from 1.1.1986, under which, a deceased employee's wife is entitled to family pension. Since the pension scheme was introduced in the year 1993 retrospectively from 1.1.1986, Ext.P3 circular was issued by the Bank directing all offices of the Bank to inform the family members of the deceased employees about the scheme and directing them to file option for family pension on or before 26.1.1996. According to the petitioner, the petitioner did not receive any intimation in respect of the pension scheme from the respondents. Later on, having known about the same from other sources, the petitioner filed an application for family pension under Regulation 26(1), subsequent to 26.1.1996. That has been rejected on the ground that the application should have been filed on or before 26.1.1996. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P8 as the same are illegal and arbitrary and are w.p.c.30523/06 2 violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to accept the exercise of option for pension scheme by the petitioner as provided in Central Bank of India Employee's (Pension) Regulations, 1993 and to grant her pension as provided under the Regulations with effect from 26.10.1987, the date of death of the husband of the petitioner.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents taking the stand that the family pension could have been paid only if the application was filed on or before 26.1.1996. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The cut of date of 26.1.1996 is not fixed in any statutory provisions. It is only a date fixed as per the circular issued by the Central Bank of India. That being so, that is not legally valid as such. Even otherwise, having adopted the Rules retrospectively, without informing the petitioner about the same, the respondents could not have denied the benefits of the Regulations on the basis of the cut of date not made known to the petitioner. Therefore, the statutory right of the petitioner for getting the family pension cannot be denied to her on the ground that the petitioner did not submit the application for family pension on or before the said cut of date. Therefore, Exts.P2 and P8 orders of the respondents are quashed. The respondents are directed to sanction family pension to the petitioner under the Central Bank of India Employees' (Pension) Regulations, 1993, and pay the same with arrears to her, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, w.p.c.30523/06 3 within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge