IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.23215 of 2005 Between: Mumtaj Begum, W/o.Late Abdul Gafoor, R/o.8-3-976/53, Shalivahana Nagar, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad-500873. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The General Manager, Indian Bank, Head Office, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. 2 The Chief Manager ( Personnel), Indian Bank, Head Office, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. 3 The Assistant General Manager, Indian Bank, Personnel Department, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. 4 The Manager, Indian bank, Zonal Stationery department, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 one in the nature of writ of mandamus: a) declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the grant of family pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner in terms of pension scheme of the respondent bank notified on 29-09-1995 as bad , arbitrary, illegal and discriminative; b) consequently direct the respondents to sanction family pension to the petitioner in terms of Indian Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 as per the eligibility pertaining to her husband Abdul Gaffoor on par with others similarly situated persons who were sanctioned the same; and c) and further declare the rejection of sanction of pension to the petitioner on the ground that it was applied belated, as bad and arbitrary; and d) and pass such other order/ orders . Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.23215 of 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of respondents in rejecting to grant family pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner in terms of the Pension Scheme of the respondent-Bank notified on 29-9-1995 on the ground that it was applied belatedly as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to sanction family pension to the petitioner in terms of the Indian Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations,1995 as per the eligibility pertaining to her husband-Abdul Gaffoor on par with other similarly situated persons, who were sanctioned the same. According to the petitioner, her husband-late Abdul Gaffoor joined the respondent-Bank as a Clerk in the year 1956. After serving for more than 3 decades, he died in harness on 26-11-1992. Respondent-Bank paid the petitioner the benefits of gratuity, provident fund etc., for which the husband of the petitioner was eligible. In the year 1995, respondent- Bank introduced pension scheme. The Indian Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations,1995 (for short ‘the Regulations’) which are applied to employees/retired employees/family of deceased employees, read as under: 1. Employees, who were in the service of the Bank on or after 1st day of January,1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November,1993. 2. Employees, who have retired on or after the 1st day of November,1993 but before the notified date (29-9-1995). 3. Employees, who are in the service of the Bank before the notified date and continued to be in the service of the Bank on or after the notified date (29-9-1995). 4. Employees, who were in the service of the Bank during any time on or after the 1st day of November,1993 and had died after the retirement but before the notified date (29-9-1995). 5. Employees, who joined the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of November,1993 but who have died while in service of the Bank before the notified date (29-9-1995). 6. Employees, who were in the service of the Bank during any time on or after the 1st day of January,1986 and had died while in service on or before the 31st day of October,1993 or had retired on or before the 31st day of October,1993 but died before the notified date (29-9-1995). 7. Employees who joined the service of the Bank on or before the 31st day of October,1993 and who died while in service on or after the 1st day of November,1993 but before the notified date (29-9- 1995). 8. Employees, who join the service of the Bank on or after the notified date (29-9-1995). The Regulations further provide for exercising option, in writing, in all the above cases within 120 days from the notified date i.e. 29-9-1995 to become members of the Pension Fund. It also stipulates as under: (a) Employees who were in the service of the Bank on or after 01-01-1986 but had retired before 29-9- 1995 i.e. notified date, are eligible to exercise option for pension. (i) In case of retired employees, who have submitted option for pension earlier, the Bank will arrange to send letter individually to the residential addresses. The retired employees have to obtain attestation from the Branch Manager in the duly filled in option form and forward the same to the CO: Personnel Department. (ii) In case of eligible retired employees who have not submitted option for pension earlier should indicate their option in the enclosed format in Annexure-C. (b) Employees who were in the service of the bank during any time on or after 01-01-1986 and had died before the notified date in which case their family may exercise option for pension in the format, which is enclosed in Annexure-D. The Branches/Offices are advised to inform the family of deceased employees accordingly. (c) The employees, who are in the service of the Bank before the notified date and continue to be in the service of the Bank on or after the notified date are eligible to exercise option. Hence, employees, who wish to exercise option and employees who have earlier exercised their option as per CO: Personnel Department Circular No.PRNL.47/94-95, dated 16-6-1994 and PRNL:101/94-95 dated 30-09-1994 should submit their option in Annexure-B again. According to the petitioner, she is eligible for family pension, since her husband died while in service in the year 1992. The employees of the respondent-Bank and their families were extended pensionary benefits as per the pension scheme of the Bank, which was introduced in the year 1995. The guidelines of the Scheme clearly state that employees, who were in the service of the Bank during any time on or after 1-1-1986 and had died before the notified date, in which case, their family may exercise option for pension in the prescribed format. The branches were advised to inform the family of deceased employees accordingly. The Regulations provide for exercising of option within 120 days from the notified date i.e. 29-9-1995. According to the petitioner, she was not sent any intimation by the branch seeking for her option for pension in terms of the guidelines. While that being so, petitioner came to know about the introduction of the pension scheme only in the year 1997 for the first time. Thereafter, on 23-7-1997 she applied for family pension to the 3rd respondent in terms of the scheme and requested to send her the necessary application forms. On 2-9-1997 the Manager, Indian Bank Pension Cell, Chennai addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that she did not exercise option within the stipulated time and as such, she was not eligible for the pension. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 29-10-1997 to the 3rd respondent stating that she was not aware of the paper notification and the requirements under the scheme and requested for sanction of family pension. The respondents again rejected her request vide letter dated 26-11-1997 reiterating their earlier stand. She again made representations to the higher authorities and was expecting favourable response from them. According to the petitioner, in the meanwhile, the Madras High Court rendered a Judgment in Writ Appeal No.29 of 1999, dated 8-3-2000, wherein while dealing with the same issue held that the denial of family pension on the ground that it was applied beyond the prescribed period is arbitrary. Under those circumstances, petitioner once again made a representation to the 1st respondent on 14-6-2002 requesting to grant family pension in terms of the scheme as well as the said Judgment. Her request was again turned down on 11-9-2002. Further, she being a lady and having no other support to take care of her, requested the All India Indian Bank Retirees Association to take up the matter with the authorities, but that also did not yield any positive response. According to the petitioner, the rejection of her case for grant of family pension as per the Regulations on the ground that she had not submitted application within 120 days of the notified date is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, this Writ Petition. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter is filed denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is inter alia stated that the Pension Scheme introduced vide notification dated 29-9-1995 provides for payment of family pension even in case of employees, who retired from service or died on or after 1-1-1986. But, as per the scheme, it is incumbent upon the dependants of the deceased employee to submit the application in the prescribed format for family pension before the stipulated date, which is 120 days from the date of notification i.e. on or before 26-1-1996. The same was duly brought-out by way of a public notice. But the petitioner had not submitted any application for family pension within the cut-off date i.e. 26-1-1996. Petitioner had addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent on 23-7-1997 i.e. almost 18 months after the cut-off date, requesting for family pension. Since the application was not submitted within 120 days of notified date, the same was not considered and it was duly communicated to the petitioner. Assuming, though not admitting, that the petitioner came to know about the introduction of pension scheme only in the year 1997, it is evident that the petitioner is knowing fully well that branches/offices were advised to inform the family of the deceased employees about applying for family pension within a prescribed time limit, had chosen to approach the 3rd respondent at Chennai on 23-7-1997 for necessary application forms, instead of approaching any local branch. When the Bank has stated that it cannot consider the petitioner’s request for family pension, as the application was not submitted within time, she had apparently accepted the same and kept quiet for 5 years. She had raised the issue again in the year 2002. After another 3 years, she had approached this Court. Petitioner has not given any valid or convincing reasons for not exercising her option for family pension within the stipulated time. The reason given by the petitioner that she was not aware of the introduction of the pension scheme till 1997 is also not convincing, since it is difficult to believe that she had not been informed by her son, who is an employee of the Bank about the introduction of pension scheme and her eligibility for family pension. Further, though the petitioner claims that the respondents never informed her anything about introduction of pension scheme and as such, the rejection of her case is untenable, it is apparent that her son, who was appointed as a Clerk in the Bank on compassionate grounds, as a member of the family of the deceased employee, is obviously aware of the introduction of pension scheme and also about the provisions of the same. As per the pension scheme, the branches/offices were advised to inform the family of deceased employee to exercise their option for pension and it was nowhere stipulated that the intimation should be given only to the widow of the deceased employee. Since the son of the petitioner, who has accepted appointment in Bank on compassionate grounds as a member of the deceased employee’s family, is aware of the pension scheme, the petitioner cannot contend that the Bank had never informed anything. Even otherwise, the Union had notified the pension scheme in the local newspapers. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides. It is not the case of the respondent-Bank that the claim of the petitioner does not fit into the teeth of the Pension Scheme introduced by it. It is their objection that the petitioner did not apply as per the guidelines laid down in the Scheme, i.e. within 120 days of the notified date - 29-9-1995. In this regard, the respondents state that, firstly, the Branches/Offices were advised to intimate the family of the deceased employee to exercise their option for pension. Secondly, it was notified by the Union in the local newspapers and thirdly the son of the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds in the Bank, on the death of her husband and he knows about the pension scheme etc. and, therefore, the petitioner had knowledge about the introduction of the Scheme and exercising of option within 120 days from the notified date. This seems to be not correct. The Branch Manager addressed a letter to the petitioner on 2-9-1997 on the application filed by her seeking family pension, on 23-7-1997. Through the said letter, it was informed that Indian Bank’s Association had already issued a paper notification in respect of pension option to be exercised by the family members of the employees died on or after 1-1-1986 to make themselves eligible to draw family pension. It was also stated that through Circular PRNL:123/95-96, dated 23-11-1995, it was informed to the Branches to send the family pension options received from the family of the deceased employees on or before 26-1-1996, but since the petitioner had not exercised any option for family pension within the stipulated time as indicated in Indian Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations,1995, she is not eligible for family pension. But, the fact that the Branch/Office had not informed the petitioner as to the pension scheme is not denied. The Branch/Office had never informed the petitioner soon after the introduction of the pension scheme, as to exercising of option for the benefits of family pension within 120 days. Merely, there was some publication made by the Union giving general intimation, which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, cannot be treated as an intimation given by the Bank. Further, since the son of the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds in the Bank and, therefore, he is supposed to know about the eligibility of his mother as to the family pension etc., thus it must be treated that the petitioner had knowledge as to the pension scheme and her eligibility for the same and she is also supposed to exercise option within 120 days of the notified date is an approach made by the Bank, which requires to be condemned. This approach made by the respondent-Bank is not in tune with the procedure required under the law. Neither the petitioner was intimated personally immediately after the introduction of the scheme requiring her to exercise option for family pension nor there is any evidence to show that she was aware of this scheme within 120 days of the introduction of the scheme. A public authority failed to do its duty and attributed something to the petitioner as to knowledge, 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 being paid either to the retired employee or family pension to the family members of the deceased employees. The pension is paid for the active service rendered by the employee during his tenure of service. In fact, it is a part of the wages saved by the employee to be utilized after retirement to lead a peaceful and comfortable life. In a case of this nature where the Bank directed to exercise options 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 to the widow of an employee in extending family pension. In fact, the issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by a Judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.29 of 1999, dated 8-3-2000 whereunder it was 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.” This was the judgment relied upon by the petitioner while making representation on 14-6-2002. In fact, the judgment was accepted by the Board of the very same Bank working in Tamil Nadu, but, unfortunately failed to apply the same to the petitioner. This approach of the respondents deserves to be deprecated. For all the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for sanction of family pension is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be declared as such. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner from the date on which her husband passed away i.e. 26-11-1992 and pay all consequential benefits including arrears of family pension, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 25-3-2008 prk