IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3325 of 2005 ANIL KUMAR & ANR Versus THE UCO BANK & ORS ----------- 5 24.6.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and learned counsel for the UCO Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”). Petitioners are the employees of the UCO Bank. They filed this writ application for a direction to the Bank to admit them to the pension scheme as they had opted for the pension scheme vide their application dated 15.11.1994 which is contained in Annexure 1/A and 1/B to the writ petition and the supplementary affidavit. In the light of the pension scheme they and the Bank contributed to the pension fund which is evident from the salary deduction statement contained in Annexure-2 series. During the pendency of this writ application petitioner No.1 died in harness and under order dated 22.4.2008 was substituted by his wife and children in these proceedings. Petitioner No.2 is even presently serving the Bank but contributed towards pension scheme along with petitioner No.1 until they received provident fund statement of account upto 30.9.1999. Petitioner No.1 represented before the Chief Officer, P.F. Department, UCO Bank vide his representations dated 22.9.2001 , 13.11.2002 and 25.5.2002, as contained in Annexures- 4,5 and 6 and desired to know as to why provident fund contributions have not been transferred to the pension fund. The authorities of the 2 Bank however did not respond to such representations and ultimately the present writ petition was filed for a direction to the Bank to treat the petitioners as subscriber of the pension fund in the light of their applications as also contributions made by them which is evident from the salary deduction statement contained in Annexure-2 series. Counsel for the Bank has opposed the prayer. He states that the deduction statements, Annexure-2 series do not indicate that the petitioners became member of the pension scheme right from the beginning of the scheme as the salary deduction statements A/2 only indicate deductions and contributions in the pension scheme from the year 1999, which submission is being refuted by the counsel for the petitioners with reference to the representation dated 22.9.2001,13.11.2002 and 25.5.2002 Annexures-4, 5 and 6 as both the petitioners were serving together in the same Branch when they had applied for the pension scheme and contributions were made by both of them towards their pension fund. From the pleadings made on behalf of the parties this Court is not in a position to decide whether the petitioners contributed towards the pension fund right from the beginning of the scheme. Accordingly I direct the Chief Officer, Pension Cell of the UCO Bank Respondent No.2 to verify from the records of the local Branch whether the petitioners have contributed in the pension fund right from the beginning and if 3 that be so then they be allowed the benefit under the pension scheme. If during the pendency of this application heirs and legal representatives of petitioner No.1 have been paid contributory provident fund amount then the said amount be refunded by the heirs and legal representative of petitioner No.1 and they be admitted as a members of the pension scheme in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 should pass appropriate orders in the light of this order after examining the records of the local Branch where the petitioners served when they subscribed to the pension scheme as early as possible in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, this writ application stands disposed of. P.K. (V.N. Sinha, J.)