IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.7402 of 1999 Between: Patnala Laxmi Kantham, C/o D.Ravi Chandra Kumari, Flot No.104, Vihar Apartments, Gudimalakapur Road, Opp: Lal Bahdur Junior College, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The General Manager, Andhra Bank, Central Office 5-9-11, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) declaring the action of the respondents as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional in issuing the letter No.666/3/P/FP/Ser./2942/614, dated 15-11-1996 and letter dated 30-12-1997 and all consequential letter rejecting the petitioners claim for family pension and set aside the same. (ii) to declare the petitioner eligible for family pension with effect from 19-12-1993 the date on which her husband died. (iii) to direct the respondent bank to pay the entire family pension and arrears to the petitioner with the interest of 18%. (iv) to call for records. (v) to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.7402 of 1999 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare letter No.666/33/P/FP/Ser./2942/614, dated 15-11-1996 and also the letter dated 30-12-1997 of the respondent and all consequential letters rejecting the petitioner’s claim for family pension as arbitrary and illegal, to declare that the petitioner is eligible for family pension with effect from 19-12-1993, the date on which her husband died and to direct the respondent-Bank to pay the entire family pension and arrears to the petitioner with interest at 18% per annum. It appears, petitioner is the widow of an employee of Andhra Bank, who retired as M.M.-III Officer from the Regional Office, Rajahmundry in the month of December,1989 and died on 19-12- 1993. While that being so, the respondent-Bank has framed the Andhra Bank (Employees) Pension Reggulations,1995 (for short ‘the Regulations’), as per which, the petitioner is entitled for family pension. By letter dated 13-11-1995 of the respondent-Bank, the petitioner was informed that in view of changed guidelines under the new Pension Regulations, she is eligible to opt for family pension and certain forms were enclosed enabling her to apply for the same. It appears, petitioner fell ill and, therefore, did not submit the application immediately and she received a reminder dated 11-6-1996 asking her to furnish the required information in the forms annexed thereto. According to the petitioner, she submitted the application for family pension on 16-10-1996. Unfortunately, the same was rejected by letter dated 15-11-1996 stating that the option was submitted on 16- 10-1996, while it should have been submitted on or before 25-1-1996. However, petitioner seems to have made representations for reconsideration, the latest being 30-11-1996. She has received a communication, in this regard, on 30-12-1997 reiterating the same stand as was taken in the letter dated 15-11-1996. Hence, this Writ Petition. A detailed counter has been filed admitting the eligibility of the petitioner for the family pension; but, it is asserted that the petitioner made an application opting for family pension beyond 120 days from the notified date i.e. 29-9-1995. Petitioner earlier submitted an application on 31-7-1994 seeking release of family pension. Since there was no provision, at that time, for grant of the family pension, her representation was rejected on 2-9-1994. However, in view of changed guidelines under the Regulations,1995 she was intimated that she could opt for family pension vide letter dated 13-11- 1995. Further, it is stated that it is not possible to intimate each and every person/employee, who would be entitled to the benefit of family pension/pension; therefore, a press release was issued by the Indian Banks’ Association and the same was also got published in the leading newspapers all over the country. It has been stated therein that the option has to be exercised within 120 days from the notified date i.e. 29-9-1995. In accordance with this, one has to exercise his/her option on or before 25-1-1996. Thus, there was a wide publicity about the last date for exercising options in this regard. In view of the fact that this was got published in the leading newspapers, Bank thought it not appropriate to specify the same in the letter addressed to the petitioner on 13-11-1995. In spite of the said communication from the Bank and the general press release specifying the last date for exercising options for family pension, petitioner did not furnish her option till 16-10-1996, which was received by the Bank on 16-11-1996 i.e. nearly 11 months after the specified cut-off date. For this reason, the petitioner is not entitled to exercise her option for family pension at a later date; therefore, her case was rightly rejected being a delayed option. The Bank had sent intimation to her on 13-11-1995 and even from this date, the petitioner had about 2½ months time to exercise her option. There was no justifiable reason as to why she did not utilize the opportunity within the above period, which clearly indicates that she has no intention of coming to the family pension scheme and it is a pure afterthought and the relief claimed cannot be granted. She could have filed the option within 120 days from the notified date i.e. on or before 25-1-1996. In the present case, the period of 120 days was given for the employees/families to opt for pension/family pension and this at any rate is a reasonable period for the information to percolate and enable them to apply themselves and come to the conclusion in the matter. Thus, there is nothing arbitrary and it cannot be said that in spite of a reasonable restriction, it has to be extended to all individuals and would act against the welfare of the people of the society at large. Once the Bank accepts the case of an individual employee, after the cut-off date, it would open the flood gates and very heavy loss would be caused to the Bank. Though the financial hardship cannot be a ground for depriving the benefit to a person, who has a right, it definitely plays a vital role in considering the cases of the persons who have not been diligent in exercising options. Thus, the respondent-Bank was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Heard both sides. It appears, in the year 1994 when the petitioner applied for family pension, since there was no family pension scheme available, her representation was rejected on 2-9-1994. However, in view of the changed guidelines under the Pension Regulations of 1995, the Bank formulated a scheme and the details as to eligibility, the quantum of pension etc., were stipulated in the Regulations. These Regulations came into force from 29-9-1995. It was made applicable to the employees, who were in the services of the Bank during any time on or after 1-1-1986 and retired on or before 31-10-1993, but died before the notified date i.e. 29-9-1995. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner retired from service in the month of December,1989 and died on 19-12-1993. Therefore, there is no dispute as to the eligibility of the petitioner for the family pension under the said Regulations. In fact, the Bank itself has sent a communication dated 13-11-1995 asking the petitioner to opt for family pension in view of the changed guidelines under the Regulations. In the said communication, there was no mention that the petitioner is supposed to submit the papers within 120 days or on or before 25-1-1996. Further, the Bank, though sent a reminder to the petitioner on 11-6-1996, it also did not say that the application should be submitted within 120 days of the notified date i.e. 29-9-1995. Further, it is very interesting to notice that if the application ought to have been submitted within 120 days beyond the notified date 29-9-1995 i.e., on or before 25-1-1996, there was no necessity for the respondent to send the communication dated 11-6-1996 asking her to submit the option forms. This itself shows that there was no strict rule for submission of application within 120 days from the notified date. Firstly, the very communication dated 13-11-1995 was sent just two months prior to the last date i.e. 25-1-1996. Thus, it does not satisfy the criterion of submitting the application within 120 days. Secondly, when the respondent-Bank itself has reminded on 11-6-1996 and the application was submitted on 16-10-1996, it was rejected only on the ground that it was not submitted within 120 days. This is nothing but arbitrary and unreasonable. Petitioner was neither intimated that if the application is not submitted on or before 25-1-1996, the same would be rejected. Further, even in the communication dated 11-6-1996, there was no such mention nor it is stated that the petitioner failed to submit her application within 120 days. A public authority failed to do its duty and attributed something to the petitioner as to the knowledge, saying that the scheme was published in the newspapers by the Association, which cannot be countenanced. Absolutely, there was no intimation given to the petitioner by the Bank as required under the Scheme. It may not be out of place to mention that pension is not a charity. Pension is paid either to the retired employee or family pension to the family members of the deceased-employee, for the active service rendered by the employee during his tenure of office. In fact, it is a part of the wages saved by the employee to be utilized to lead a peaceful and comfortable life after retirement. In a case of this nature where the Bank directed to exercise option within 120 days, it does not mean that the option form even filed beyond that period can be rejected outrightly. The respondent-Bank made a pedantic approach instead of making a realistic approach in this regard. The respondent-Bank could have been more considerate towards the widow of an employee in extending the family pension. Though under little different circumstances when a case arose before the Madras High Court, a Division Bench in W.A.No.29 of 1999, dated 8-3-2000 held as under: “5. Therefore, the learned Judge held that objection regarding the entitlement of the pension scheme by the petitioner cannot be sustained. It is also a matter of record that, though the instructions extracted above, clearly indicate that family of deceased employees have to be informed, no such information was given to the petitioner for exercise of her option. The petitioner has exercised her option after the Regulation came into force. Therefore, the learned Judge allowed the Writ Petition, against which the present appeal has been filed. 6. The main contention of the Bank in the Writ Appeal is that the option has not been exercised within 120 days from the notified date and, therefore, the petitioner had disentitled herself from receiving the benefits under the scheme. 7. To the query whether proper information was given to the family of the deceased employee regarding the right to exercise option, the Bank would produce a paper publication made by the Indian Banks’ Association informing the employees and the families of the deceased employees of the pension scheme. 8. According to the senior counsel, this public notice was sufficient intimation to the family of the deceased employees. It is clear from the communication dated 23.11.95 that the management of the Bank had clearly and rightly given instructions for individual intimation to the family of the deceased employee. A public notice that is produced by the Bank herein can never amount to such individual notice and it is also not clear how, and in what capacity, the notice issued by the Indian Banks’ Association will amount to intimation by the Indian Bank. 9. It is not disputed by the senior counsel that had the writ petitioner exercised her option within 120 days from the notified date, she would be entitled to the family pension. That being so, to deny her the same on the ground that her application has been forwarded beyond the aforesaid period speaks of arbitrariness and it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is not seen how the Bank is prejudiced by the so called delay in making the application, especially when the Bank had failed to intimate the family of the deceased employee of the liberalized pension scheme, as instructed by its own Management.” (emphasis supplied) The above Judgment was accepted by the Board of Indian Bank at Chennai. Relying on the said judgment when a similar question arose in Writ Petition No.23215 of 2005, this Court disposed of the same on 25-3-2008 holding that the public authority failed to do its duty of intimating the petitioner therein within 120 days and cannot attribute something to the petitioner as to knowledge of publishing of the scheme in the newspapers through the Indian Banks Association and thus directed the Bank to grant family pension to the petitioner therein. In this case, both the letters dated 13-11-1995 and 11-6-1996 have not directed the petitioner to submit her claim application within 120 days from the notified date. In fact, the present stand of the Bank in the counter is in diametrically opposite to the letter sent on 11-6- 1996 reminding the petitioner to submit her application for the purpose of claiming family pension. Learned counsel for the respondents could not bring to the notice of the Court that there is a Regulation, which contemplates rejection of an application filed seeking family pension beyond 120 days. Even otherwise, in the given facts of this case, i.e., a reading of the intimation sent to the petitioner on 13-11- 1995 and the letter dated 11-6-1996 would make the rule of submitting the application within 120 days from the notified date redundant. I have looked into the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in this regard, viz., STATE OF PUNJAB v. AMAR NATH GOYAL[1], STATE OF BIHAR v. BIHAR PENSIONERS SAMAJ[2] and CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA SRTC v. K.O. VARGHESE[3]. In AMAR NATH GOYAL’s case (1 supra), the Supreme Court held as under: “26. It is difficult to accede to the argument on behalf of the employees that a decision of the Central Government/State Governments to limit the benefits only to employees, who retire or die on or after 1-4-1995, after calculating the financial implications thereon, was either irrational or arbitrary. Financial and economic implications are very relevant and germane for any policy decision touching the administration of the Government, at the Centre or at the State level.” In STATE OF BIHAR v. BIHAR PENSIONERS SAMAJ case (2 supra), the Apex Court held as under: “17. We think that the contention is well founded. The only ground on which Article 14 has been put forward by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the fixation of the cut-off date for payment of the revised benefits under the two concerned notifications was arbitrary and it resulted in denying arrears of payments to certain sections of the employees. This argument is no longer res integra. It has been held in a catena of judgments that fixing of a cut-off date for granting of benefits is well within the powers of the Government as long as the reasons therefor are not arbitrary and are based on some rational consideration.” In K.O. VARGHESE’s case (3 supra), the Supreme Court observed that the financial position of a corporation like KSRTC is certainly relevant when the corporation takes a decision as to whether it should implement a recommendation for enhanced emoluments and pension. Since financial position of KSRTC is not sound, the decision taken by the State Government not to implement, here and now, the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission for KSRTC and the decision based on it by KSRTC are fully justified. Certainly, the decision cannot be said to be vitiated by any extraneous consideration or perverse appreciation of the circumstances obtaining. There is no dispute as to the ratio laid down in the said decisions. Though the power of fixing cut-off date for extending any financial benefit to the employees is available to the authorities, in the instant case, the cut-off date was not informed to the petitioner either through the letter dated 13-9-1995 or 11-6-1996, as noticed above. Hence, I am of the opinion that the above judgments have no application to the facts of this case. For all the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the case of the petitioner for sanction of family pension is arbitrary and illegal. As such, the impugned letters are liable to be set aside and are accordingly set aside. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner from the day on which her husband passed away i.e. 19-12- 1993 and pay all consequential benefits, including arrears, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 04-4-2008 prk [1] 2005(6) SCC 754 [2] 2006(5) SCC 65 [3] 2007(8) SCC 231