Letters Patent Appeal No.1216 OF 2004 ********* THE REGIONAL MANAGER,UCO BANK------------------(Appellant) Versus SHAMBHU PRASAD (S.PRASAD)& ORS------------(Respondents) With LPA No.1217 oF 2004 THE REGIONAL MANAGER,UCO BANK--------------(Appellant) Versus CHANDRA MOHAN JHA(C.M.JHA)&ORS----------(Respondents) With LPA No.1218 oF 2004 THE REGIONAL MANAGER,UCO BANK--------------(Appellant) Versus GAUTAM KUMAR SINHA(G.K.SINHA)& ORS-----(Respondents) With LPA No.1219 oF 2004 THE REGIONAL MANAGER,UCO BANK---------------(Appellant) Versus JEET BAHADUR LAMA(J.B.LAMA)& ORS---------(Respondents) ------- Against the Judgment and Order dated 23rd August, 2004 passed by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Mridula Mishra in C.W.J.C. No. 7727 of 2003, C.W.J.C. No.7724 of 2003 and, C.W.J.C. No.7726 of 2003 --------- For the Appellants: Dr. Sadanand Jha,------ Sr. Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava,-- Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Kameshwar Pd Gupta, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh, & C.M. Prasad, JJ. Whether the petitioners-respondents exercised option to come under the UCO Bank Employees’ (Pension) Regulations, 2 1993 or not was the subject matter of the writ petitions dealt with by a common Judgment and Order impugned in these appeals, whereby the writ petitions were allowed. We have considered the reasonings furnished by the learned Judge in support of the Judgment and Order under appeal. After such consideration, we find practically no scope of interference. 2. We would, however, discuss the principal points taken by the appellant before us. It was contended that the Regulation-VI of the said Regulations provided that every employee exercising option has to submit the option letter in six copies including his personal copy, which will be returned to the employee duly acknowledged by the Branch/Office. It was contended that writ petitioners-respondents did not produce their personal copies when the writ petitions were filed and the same having been pointed out they later on produced their copies but those did not contain acknowledgment. It was submitted that the said state of affair would demonstrate that in fact no option was exercised. It was stated that in the absence of acknowledgment, there is no evidence of exercise of option. 3. In the counter affidavits filed to the writ petitions, it was stated in no uncertain terms that all the options upon which 3 reliance had been placed at the time of filing of the writ petitions were copies of the options kept at the Branch. In view of such pleading, even if the copies of the option of the petitioners- respondents were not acknowledged, the fact remains that the options were in the Branch Office, where the petitioners were required to submit the same. 4. The one and the only question was whether the options were submitted on time or not. The writ Court noticed, which is not in dispute, that Kishun Lal, an employee of the appellant Bank and then working in the selfsame Branch, had also opted for pension in terms of the said Regulations, but the same was not accepted on the plea that the option was not submitted on time. The writ Court found as a fact that Kishun Lal, who subsequently voluntarily retired from the Bank, approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No.12458 of 2001, when this court directed the authority concerned of the Bank to consider the representation of Kishun Lal pertaining to his option and thereupon to pass necessary order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order of the Court. The writ Court found that upon consideration of such representation, the appellant-Bank accepted that the option of Kishun Lal was filed on 4 time and accordingly allowed him the benefits of the said Regulations. 5. C.W.J.C. No.12458 of 2001 filed by Kishun Lal was disposed of by this Court on 14th April, 2002 when the Court found as a fact that the option of Kishun Lal was sent by the Branch to the Regional Office by registered post and the same had also been entered in the dispatch register. The Court in that case also found that the registered reminder pertaining to submission of the said option by Kishun Lal, was also sent and that the Chief Officer of the Bank also in a letter accepted that Kishun Lal had submitted his option. 6. The copy of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.12458 of 2001 was annexed to the writ petitions. 7. In the premises, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant-Bank to at least produce its dispatch register showing that the option of Kishun Lal was dispatched by the Branch to the Regional Office and the option of the other petitioners were not so sent. Instead of doing so, the appellant Bank purported to contend that said Kishun Lal voluntarily retired and as such he was on a different platform than that of the petitioners who were still continuing as employees of the appellant. Because Kishun Lal 5 retired after taking voluntarily retirement he could not be differentiated from the petitioners in submitting option on time. In terms of the subject Regulation, if the option was not submitted on time, the optee was not entitled to the benefits of the Regulation and on that ground alone the appellants were sought to be denied such benefits. This aspect of the matter has been appropriately noticed by the writ Court, while rendering the Judgment and order under appeal. For the reasons as indicated above, we, therefore, refuse to interfere and accordingly dismiss the appeal. Patna High Court, The 11th September, 2008. N.A.F.R./Mkr. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)