C.W.P.No.10015 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.10015 of 2007 Date of Decision : 15.02.2008 S.C.Aggarwal .....Petitioner versus Allahabad Bank and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri H.C.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.K.Bagri, Advocate for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the stipulation made in the letter dated 5.6.2006, Annexure P-5, whereby the respondent- Bank put a condition for not paying interest on the arrears of pension. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under the Allahabad Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2000 (hereinafter referred to as the `VRS Scheme-2000'). The petitioner was relieved on 30.4.2001 from the services of the Bank. The petitioner sought the pension under the Old Pension Scheme, in addition to gratuity payable to the petitioner under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. A circular, Annexure P-4, was issued by the respondent-Bank on 4.6.2002, whereby it was clarified that the employees C.W.P.No.10015 of 2007 2 who have retired under the VRS Scheme-2000 framed by the Bank, may now refund the gratuity received by them with an irrevocable undertaking to the effect that they desire to avail Bank's old pension in lieu of gratuity. In view of the said Circular, the petitioner was permitted to deposit the gratuity interest, but with interest @ 9% p.a. Such interest was deposited by the petitioner on 28.6.2006. Thereafter, the amount of pension was released to the petitioner on 13.7.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been made to pay the interest on the amount of gratuity, whereas the Bank has paid the arrears of pension without any interest and, therefore, non-payment of interest, as stipulated in the letter Annexure P-5, is unfair and unjust. A perusal of the record shows that in the Circular dated 4.6.2002, Annexure P-4, the issue regarding payment of pension was clarified. It was decided that upon refund of gratuity, the old pension will be released alongwith the arrears. It was only on 28.6.2006, the petitioner deposited the amount of gratuity alongwith interest, as desired by the respondents and, therefore, the amount of pension was released to the petitioner on 13.7.2006. Before the petitioner was permitted to deposit the amount of gratuity, it was clearly stipulated in the communication dated 15.6.2006, Annexure P-5, that the arrears of pension from May, 2001 will be released without any interest. The petitioner acted on such communication and deposited the amount of gratuity alongwith interest. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to dispute the condition in the said communication after acting on such communication. C.W.P.No.10015 of 2007 3 Another argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in similar circumstances, interest has not been claimed from one Shri O.P.Sood who has also sought voluntary retirement. Therefore, the Bank has acted discriminatingly. The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. From the letter dated 3.5.2002, Annexure P-10, it is apparent that Shri O.P.Sood has deposited the amount of gratuity of Rs.3,50,000/- unilaterally without any demand from the Bank, so as to claim pension under the Old Pension Scheme even before the issuance of Circular dated 4.6.2002. Since the amount of gratuity has already been deposited with the Bank, the pension was released to Shri O.P.Sood on the issuance of Circular Annexure P-4. Therefore, the payment of pension to Shri O.P.Sood does not provide for any comparison. In view of the said facts, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 15-02-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE