CWP No.15465 of 2001(O&M) Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Bajwa, Advocate for the respondents. **** The dispute in this case relates to the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for opting for the pension scheme of the New Bank of India on the ground of a delay of 5 months in having exercised the same. The explanation given by the petitioner for the delay is that he was on long leave and came to know about the scheme after 14.06.1996 and thereafter applied for option of the pension scheme on 25.06.1996. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner had gone abroad on long leave without leaving any correspondence address and therefore neither it was the duty of the bank nor in fact the bank could inform the petitioner about the notification of the pension scheme. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued that the notification of the scheme had duly prescribed the cut off date and that there was no unreasonableness or unfairness since it was a financial matter. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Usha Dogra vs. Central Bank of India, 2003(1) RSA 440 (DB) held as follows: “Besides, we are, in any case, unable to agree with the stand of the respondents that the Regulations providing for opting for pension would disentitle the employee for the grant of pension on his failure to exercise an option in writing within 120 days from the notified date to become member of the Fund and authorise the trust of the Provident Fund of the Bank to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank along with interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Fund constituted for the purpose under Regulation 5.... .... The grant of pension to citizens and the employees is the fulfillment of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, disablement or similar other cases of undeserved want. The regulations of the respondent- bank merely make effective the constitutional mandate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 Supreme Court page 1409 affirmed the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of K.R. Erry vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 Punjab page 279 holding that pension is not to be treated as a bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the Government and that the right to superannuation pension including its amount is a valuable right vesting in a government servant. This has been the settled legal position. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subarta Sen vs. Union of India, 2001 (8) Supreme Court Cases 71 observed as under:- “Payment of pension does not depend upon Pension Fund. It is the liability undertaken by the Company under the Rules and whenever becomes due and payable is to be paid. As observed in Nakara's case pension is neither a bounty, or a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer, nor an ex-gratia payment. It is a payment for the past services rendered. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio- economic justice to those who is the heyday of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employees on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in the lurch.” Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondent-bank to bring Sh. Sham Lal Bhalla on the pension scheme. All the consequential benefits that accrue thereunder shall be paid to the petitioner who is, however, liable to return the bank's contribution to the provident fund along with interest thereto, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Consequent thereto the respondent-bank shall calculate the pension amount and arrears of pension shall be paid to the petitioner within a further period of 2 months. It is, further, directed that the arrears of pension would carry the same interest which the petitioner has to repay to the bank while refunding the bank contribution to the Provident Fund. November 3, 2008 (Ajay Tewari) Sonia Judge