IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1816 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 25.05.2009 Jaswant Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Union Bank of India and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who retired on 30.9.2007 as Armed Guard from the respondent Bank on attaining the age of superannuation, has filed the instant petition in the year 2008, much after his retirement, for quashing the letters dated 10.6.1996 (Annexure P-4) and 17.7.1996 (Annexure P-5), whereby the Central Office of the respondent bank declined the request of the petitioner and some other employees for Pension Option Membership on account of the late submission of Pension Option Forms by them and further to direct the respondent bank to grant pension to the petitioner under the Union Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter CWP No. 1816 of 2008 -2- referred to as `Pension Regulations, 1995'). In the present case, the petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank on 17.9.1984, as Armed Guard being an Ex-Serviceman. On joining the services of the respondent bank, the petitioner became member of the Contributory Fund Scheme, as at that time, no Pension Scheme was available in the respondent bank. For the first time, in the year 1994, the Pension Scheme was introduced. The Board of Directors of the respondent bank in its meeting held on 27.5.1994 adopted Union Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1993 subject to the completion of all formalities under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. A copy of those Pension Regulations was circulated among all the employees of the respondent bank vide circular dated 28.5.1994. In terms of the said circular, all the existing employees were to exercise option for the Pension Scheme before 30.9.1994. Subsequently, the Pension Regulations were slightly amended and thereafter, `Pension Regulations, 1995' came into force with effect from 29.9.1995. Under those Pension Regulations, the employees were given a fresh opportunity to opt for the Pension Scheme on the prescribed format on or before 25.1.1996. The employees who had already exercised their option in terms of the earlier circular were not required to give fresh option again. As per the Pension Scheme, an employee could opt either for pension under the `Pension Regulations. 1995' or for Provident Fund under Bank's Provident Fund Rules. It was specifically mentioned that the options, once CWP No. 1816 of 2008 -3- exercised were irrevocable and there was no scope within the fold of rules to switch over from Pension Scheme to Provident Scheme or vice-versa. The last date for receipt of options for Pension Scheme in terms of the `Pension Regulations, 1995' in the head office was 10.2.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that he personally submitted his option form duly filled up, opting for Pension Scheme on 22.1.1996, to the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, Dharampura Bazar Branch, Patiala, respondent No.6 herein, where the petitioner was working as Armed Guard. The said option form was duly received by the office of respondent No.6 on 22.1.1996. It is further the case of the petitioner that he retired from the services of the respondent bank on 30.9.2007 on attaining the age of superanuation. He was paid Employees Provident Fund amount by the respondent bank. He was also paid the gratuity. After receiving the amount of the Provident Fund as well as the gratuity on 30.9.2007, the day of his retirement, he for the first time came to know that the option given by him for Pension Scheme in the year 1996 was rejected vide letters Annexures P- 4 and P-5. Thereafter, he filed the instant writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that rejection of the option given by him in the year 1996, on the ground of late submission and receipt of the option form after the prescribed date is wholly illegal and arbitrary, because the petitioner himself has submitted the option form to respondent No.6 within time on 22.1.1996 and the last date for receipt of the same in the head office of the respondent bank was 10.2.1996. His further case is that if CWP No. 1816 of 2008 -4- respondent No.6 sends the form of the petitioner to the head office after the prescribed date i.e. 10.2.1996, then the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer due to fault of respondent No.6 in sending his Pension Form late to respondent No.2. Thus, case of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995 deserves to be considered sympathetically, because he cannot be allowed to suffer due to the inaction of respondent No.6. In the written statement, filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner has not disclosed the true facts in the petition and he deliberately concealed certain facts, which go against him. In this regard, it is stated that the petitioner did not opt for pension at the first instance in the year 1994 and again for the second time, the option form filled up by the petitioner was received by the Central Office, Mumbai, much after the last date fixed vide circular. Therefore, his option form was rejected and returned back to the Branch Manager for further intimation to the petitioner. When for the second time respondent No.6 recommended the case of the employees of the branch of the respondent bank at Dharampura, including the petitioner, for consideration of their pension option, the same were again rejected and returned along with the belated option forms. The petitioner and other employees made representation to the respondent bank for considering their option for pension. The said representation was also rejected and intimation was conveyed to respondent No.6 vide letter dated 17.6.2002. The said letter was duly acknowledged by the petitioner. CWP No. 1816 of 2008 -5- Regarding the fact that the petitioner came to know about the rejection of his option form only after his retirement, it has been stated that in the year 1999, the petitioner himself had applied for non refundable withdrawal from his Provident Fund Accumulation on the prescribed form dated 25.8.1999. The petitioner had mentioned in a column that he had not opted for pension scheme by transcribing the word `No'. Copy of the application for withdrawal of non refundable Provident Fund has been annexed with the written statement as Annexure R-5. The petitioner also submitted a letter dated 22.5.2000 accompanied with his Provident Fund Statement of 30.9.1999, which disclosed that the petitioner was a Provident Fund optee and not a pension optee. It is further stated by the respondents that on 9.5.2005, the petitioner again applied for loan against Provident Fund Accumulation. In his application, he again described himself as Provident Fund optee. Along with the application, he had annexed his Provident Fund statements, copies of which have been annexed as Annexures R-6 and R-7. In those Provident Fund Statements, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner was not a pension optee. It is further stated that after his retirement, the petitioner submitted refund application for Provident Fund on 14.8.2007. In that application, he had specifically mentioned that he was not a Pension optee. Copy of the form, duly filled in the handwriting of the petitioner, has been annexed with the written statement as Annexure R-9. It is further submitted that after his retirement, the petitioner has received the full amount of his Provident Fund and gratuity. After receiving those CWP No. 1816 of 2008 -6- payments, after a year, the instant petition has been filed. In light of the aforesaid facts, it has been stated that the petitioner was fully aware of the rejection of his option in the year 1996, but he remained silent for 12 long years, and only after his retirement and taking the benefit of Provident Fund amount, he filed the instant petition, which is liable to be dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the writ petition as well as the written statement, I do not find any ground to quash the impugned orders at this belated stage, when the petitioner was fully aware of the rejection of his option form in the year 1996 and subsequently by his conduct admitted his status as Provident Fund optee. Concededly, the petitioner did not opt for the Pension Scheme at the first instance in the year 1994. Regarding the second option, sought vide circular dated 26.10.1995, it is stated that he submitted the option form on 22.1.1996 i.e. before the time fixed i.e. 25.1.1996. But the Branch Manager did not send any option form of the petitioner to the head office before the last date i.e. 10.2.1996. The request made by the Branch Manager vide an undated letter to the head office of the respondent bank for option to the Pension Scheme by the employees was rejected on the ground that the same were sent after the cut off date. The second recommendation made by the Branch Manager for accepting the option of the petitioner for Pension Scheme was again rejected vide letter dated 17.7.1996 (Annexure P-5). It is conceded position that after rejecting the request of the petitioner for accepting his CWP No. 1816 of 2008 -7- option for Pension Scheme, the petitioner did not challenge the said action of the respondent bank. Rather, by his conduct, he accepted those orders, as in the year 1999, the petitioner applied for non-refundable withdrawal from his Provident Fund Accumulation. While making the application, he described himself as non-optee for Pension Scheme. Further, in the year 2002, he again made a representation for switching over to Pension Scheme, but the said representation was also dismissed. It is also admitted position that every year, the petitioner was receiving the Provident Fund statement, in which his status was described as Provident Fund optee and not a Pension optee. It is also admitted position that in the year 2005, the petitioner had again taken a loan from the Provident Fund Accumulation by describing himself as Provident Fund optee. It is also admitted position that after his retirement, the petitioner had withdrawn the Provident Fund amount after moving an application in which he has specifically mentioned that he was not a Pension optee and after withdrawal of the amount, he filed the instant petition. All these facts clearly indicate that the petitioner was fully aware that he was a Provident Fund optee and not a Pension optee. In light of these facts, the stand taken by the petitioner that he was not aware of the rejection of his option form cannot be accepted and the same appears to be a false stand. By his conduct, the petitioner had accepted that he was Provident Fund optee. Thus, all these facts and documents enclosed with the written statement clearly indicate that the petitioner had made a false averment in the petition that he was not aware of the rejection of his request. Therefore, CWP No. 1816 of 2008 -8- he is not entitled for the equitable relief. Since after his retirement, the petitioner has already withdrawn the Provident Fund amount, therefore, at this stage, he cannot be permitted to switch over to the Pension Scheme. In view of all these facts, I do not find any reason to quash the impugned orders/letters. Dismissed. May 25, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE