IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15458 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:16.09.2011 Siri Ram Sharma, Ex-Officer, Allahabad Bank, resident of Civil Lines, Jullundur. ...Petitioner versus The Allahabad Bank, through its Chairman & Managing Director, Netaji Subash Marg, Calcutta, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Amrik Singh Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Keshav Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of the proceedings dated 26.04.1989 rejecting the claim of pension on the ground that the petitioner was not an officer on the relevant date when the scheme was brought into force. The appointed date for the pension Rules of the Allahabad Bank was on 01.07.1979. It appears that the petitioner was promoted as an officer on 01.07.1983. The vires of the Rules giving a cut-off date through a Regulation 46 was subject of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Writ Petition No.15458 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - Sudhir Kumar Consul Versus Allahabad Bank-(2011) 3 SCC 486. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the cut-off date and held that, it was not arbitrary. Regulation 46(1) provided for pensionary benefit under existing supplementary pension scheme in lieu of the gratuity and the Court said that even an additional outlay as involved for such payment under the terms of employment would itself justify the fixation of cut-off date. The said pronouncement squarely governs the issue in this case also. 2. Sudhir Kumar, however, records the existence of scheme of pension under Regulation 1995 in terms of instruction through circular No.11143/PA/2010-11/27, dated 15.09.2010. If the petitioner applies for benefit under the circular, within a period of 30 days from the pronouncement of the order, the same may be considered within 60 days from the date of exercise of such option. 3. The writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 16.09.2011 sanjeev