IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7393 of 2005 ATISH CHANDRA CHOUDHARY Versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS. --------- 12. 21.1.2010. Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha learned counsel for the Central Bank of India. The petitioner who retired from the services of the respondent Bank with effect from 31.1.2001 from the post of peon, has filed this writ petition seeking directions to the respondent Bank for counting his services rendered in the Bank as a casual worker as qualifying service for the purpose grant of pension under the (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 of the Central Bank of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admitted position is that the petitioner was initially engaged as a watchman in the year 1967 on payment of Rs.2.25 per day and he continued as such for a period of 22 years. By order dated 20.8.1991, the services of the petitioner as daily wage casual labour was absorbed by way of appointment with effect from 3.9.1991 against the post of peon in the initial scale of Rs.815/- a copy of the said order is placed at Annexure-2 to 2 the writ petition. The petitioner retired from the services of the Bank with effect from 31.1.2001 and filed his representation for payment of his retiral benefits including pension as prescribed under the rules. However, his prayer was not accepted giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank enclosing the copy of the Pension Regulations, 1995 of the Bank and with reference to Rules 14 and 15 thereof it was submitted that as admittedly the petitioner’s regular service was less than ten years hence in terms of the said rules, he was not entitled for payment of pension from the bank. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, with reference to the special provisions provided in Rule 26 and 27, submits that the case of the petitioner also does not come within the purview of the special circumstances prescribed thereunder so as to enable the Bank to take a lenient view in the matter of counting the period which fell short in the case of the petitioner so as to fulfill the period of qualifying service. He thus submits that 3 the case of the petitioner for grant of pension could not be entertained by the Bank. Having considered the statutory provisions, it is manifest that the case of the petitioner for counting his services rendered as daily wages worker, cannot be taken into account as qualifying service for pension. However, the petitioner would nevertheless be entitled to raise his grievance for payment of the provident fund amount with up to date statutory interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that save and except the amount of his own contribution, he has not received the proper amount of provident fund which is inclusive of the Banks contribution with interest accrued thereon. He submits that even if the petitioner is not entitled to pension but then he is fully entitled to receive the provident fund amount which is inclusive of the contribution made by the petitioner and the bank together with statutory interest as admissible thereon calculated from the date the contribution was made until the date of payment. As there is no response on this issue, the petitioner is granted liberty to raise his 4 grievance before the respondent no.4 the Regional Manager and respondent no.5 Branch Manager of the Bank and who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner for payment of provident fund with interest and if the claim is found to be in accordance with the rules, the same should be paid to him within a period of three months from the date of filing of the representation. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions aforesaid. ahk (Jyoti Saran,J.)