IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13702 of 2002 GAURI SHANKAR SAH S/o- Late Raghunath Sah, Resident of Subhas Nagar, Post Purnea, P.S.K. Hat, District Purnea, Pin-854301 . Versus 1. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-Managing Director, UCO BANK, Head Office, 10 Biplabi, Trailokya Maharaj Sarani (Brabourne Road), Kolkata- 700001. 2. The Chief Officer, Pension Cell, UCO Bank, Head Office, Personal Department (Pension Cell),12, Old Court House Street, Kolkata-01. 3. The Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, UCO Bank, 4th floor, Maurya Lok complex, Patna-01. 4. The Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Regional Office, PAD, Bhagalpur Bihar 5. The Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Dholbazza Bazar Branch, Bhagalpur For the petitioner :- Sri K.P. Gupta, Adv. For the respondent-Bank :- R.P. Birnaway, Adv. ******* 7 10.11.2009 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank. Petitioner had filed the writ petition seeking inter alia a direction to the respondent Bank for grant of benefits under the Pension scheme introduced by the Bank under its Circular No. CHO/PMG/19/94 dated 27.5.1994 placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner joined the UCO Bank on 12.8.1964 as Clerk-cum-Typist and was promoted to the post of 2 Officer in the Junior Management Scale-I on 1.7.1982 and was posted as Branch Manager at Gopalpur Branch in Bhagalpur district in January 1983. The respondent Bank brought out a pension scheme as contained in the Circular No. CHO/PMG/19/94 dated 27.5.1994 (Annexure-1) inviting options from its employees which had to be submitted by 30.9.1994. The employees thus had to submit their respective options by 30.9.1994. The last date for exercising option was extended from 30.9.1994 to 30.11.1994 vide Circular No. CHO/PMG/29/94 dated 8.10.1994 which fact is apparent from the Circular dated 23.12.1994 (Annexure-2) whereby directions were issued to all Branches to forward all the option forms received from the employees in service and submit to the respective head office on or before 31.12.1994. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner exercised his option of being included under the said pension scheme and filed his option form within the prescribed period of 30.9.1994 and which was forwarded to the Zonal Office vide UCO Bank, Rampur Branch letter dated 3.10.1994 (Annexure-3). Learned counsel submits that the said fact is also manifest from 3 the certificate of the Branch Manager placed at Annexure-4 of the proceedings who has certified that his pension option papers had been sent through courier service vide receipt No. 2363 dated 3.10.1994 to the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Patna along with the B.S. statements relating to September, 1994. Learned counsel further invites the attention of this Court to Annexure- 10 which is a communication of the Manager of the Dholbazza Bazar Branch addressed to the Zonal Manager, Head Office certifying that after verification of the records available they have found that the petitioner had opted for pension vide option letter dated 30.9.1994 and the banks contribution was always shown in the column provided for pension in PA-2. The Branch Manager thus certified the claim of the petitioner for being covered under the pension scheme as genuine and recommended as such. Learned counsel also refers to the salary deduction statements appended to the writ proceeding to demonstrate that the Banks contribution have been transmitted towards pension fund. Learned counsel further with reference to Annexure-8 which is a letter dated 19.2.2001, submits that Bank’s contribution to 4 pension fund from April, 1999 to January 2001 had been transmitted to the pension fund. Learned counsel also refers to a letter dated 12.2.2001 enclosed with Annexure 8, of the Regional Manager in which he himself has taken note of the statement regarding the Banks contribution to the pension fund from April, 1999 to January, 2001 of Rs. 23,993.56 and has advised the Manager Dholbazza Bazar Branch to prepare separate sheet for each voluntary retired employees. It is thus submitted that there was no laches on the part of the petitioner in exercising his option for inclusion within the prescribed time and that even the respondent Bank had transmitted the required contribution i.e. Bank’s contribution towards pension fund and thus the position was very clear. The recommendation of the Branch Manager however was not accepted by the Head Office as communicated by the Regional Manager of the Bank vide letter dated 29.10.2001 (Annexure-12). The Head office was pleased to reject the recommendation on grounds that there was no record available with them to show that the petitioner had exercised his option for pension 5 within stipulated time and whether the option letter was acknowledged by the Regional Office. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank thus supports the decision of the respondent Bank to reject the request made by the petitioner for being included under the pension scheme on grounds that the claim of the petitioner itself was an afterthought. He submits that although the scheme was introduced in the year 1993 but the petitioner never raised any grievance despite the fact that in the half early provident fund statement there was no mention about the status of the petitioner as an optee to the pension fund. Learned counsel for the Bank in furtherance of his submission refers to Annexure-B series which is a provident fund statement of one Anil Kumar Sinha and which specifically categories him as a pension optee. Learned counsel thus submits that the petitioner has already drawn his contributory provident fund and other retiral benefits and having accepted the same he cannot be allowed to raise this issue of not being included in the pension fund which is belated and suffers from gross laches and delay. He further submits that even presuming that the pension fund papers were 6 submitted to the Branch but unless the same was transmitted to the head office within the stipulated period, the options could not be entertained. He submits that there is no dispatch receipts to show that his been case has been forwarded for consideration. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank thus submits that the scheme was very clear on the issue and all such employees who had exercised option within the stipulated time and whose options was sent to the office within the stipulated time as prescribed therein were entitled to the benefits. It was contended that even such employees who could demonstrate by proper receipts that they had exercised their options within time and their options had been forwarded within the stipulated period can have a cause. He submits that it is clear from the communication of the Regional Manager as placed at Annexure-12 of the proceedings that a decision was taken upon verification of the records that the option papers of the petitioner had not been received within the prescribed time. He thus submits that petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs. Learned counsel 7 appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to a Bench decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7682 of 2003 (Gautam Kumar Sinha Vrs. UCO Bank & others and analogous cases) passed on 23.8.2004 and submits that the case of the present petitioner is fully covered by the said Bench decision. He further submits that similar objections had been raised by the respondent- Bank in the matter of the said writ petitioners and which had been negated by this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank controverts this position and submits that the case of the present petitioner is not covered under the said judgment inasmuch as whereas the writ petitioners who were party to the judgment dated 23.8.2004 were serving employees of the Bank, the present petitioner is an employee who had taken a voluntary retirement and had slept over his rights. He thus submits that the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The issue raised in the present proceedings are not different from the issue that was under consideration of this Court 8 in the case of Gautam Kumar Sinha(supra). In fact, the respondent Bank themselves while distinguishing the case in favour of one Kishun Lal had taken a plea that since the said Kishun Lal had accepted voluntary retirement in the year, 2001 hence he was allowed to join the pension fund. This Court upon consideration of the facts was pleased to dispose of the batch cases with direction to the respondent Bank to consider the case of the petitioners and pass necessary orders within three months of the receipt/production of a copy of this order. The respondent Bank not being satisfied by the order of the Single Judge went in appeal giving rise to L.P.A. No. 1216 of 2004. The Division Bench took note of the fact that the copies of the options had been kept at the Branch in those cases and held that it was only on grounds where the options were not submitted within time that the optee could be held disentitled to the benefits of the pension regulation and that alone could be a ground to deny him the said benefit. Annexure-3 is a letter dated 3.10.1994 forwarding the pension option papers dated 30.9.1994 of the petitioner. Annexure-4 is a 9 certificate issued by the Branch Manager certifying the fact that the option of the petitioner was sent through courier vide receipt No. 2633 dated 3.10.1994. The said two communications together with the letter of the Branch Manager, Dholbazza Bazar Branch dated 25.1.2002 (Annexure-10) addressed to the Zonal Manager, Head Office, in no uncertain terms manifests that the petitioner had opted for inclusion under the scheme well within the date i.e. 30.9.1994 notwithstanding that the said date was subsequently extended until 30.11.1994, which is apparent from the circular of the Bank dated 23.12.1994(Annexure-2). Hence even in that view of the matter the option of the petitioner was well within time. The situation further finds support from the letter of the Regional Manager dated 19.2.2001 (Annexure-8) requesting for supply of information pertaining to the provident fund contribution of the petitioner and in which he has taken note of the Bank’s contributions towards the pension fund in respect of the petitioner for the period April, 1999 to January, 2001 to the tune of Rs. 23,993/-. Thus considering the facts and 10 circumstances of the case and the documents available on record and with due consideration to the respective contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, I am convinced that the petitioner had opted for inclusion in the pension fund within the prescribed time. Following the Judicial pronouncements of this Court (Supra) this writ petition is also disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities of the respondent Bank to process the case of the petitioner for inclusion in the Pension Scheme of the Bank (Annexure-1) and take all consequential steps as required under law. It is made clear that if any amount is found to be refundable by the petitioner for such inclusion then he shall refund the same within a period of two weeks of receipt of any such direction from the Bank. The exercise must be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)