IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.99 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:3.7.2009 Punjab National Bank & others ......Appellants Vs. Shyam Lal Bhalla ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the appellants. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the claim of the respondent for pension. 2. The grievance of the respondent in the writ petition was that pension scheme was introduced in the appellant- Bank with which the respondent served for the requisite period, which was to be applicable on exercise of option by a specified date. The respondent, however, exercised option after delay of 5 months, on which ground the option was rejected. He gave the explanation that he was on long leave and on that account he came to know about pension scheme late. 3. The claim was contested by the Bank. It was submitted that L.P.A.No.99 of 2009 -2- exercise of option by a specified date was a part of the scheme itself and the delay in exercise of option could not be condoned. Learned Single Judge relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Usha Dogra vs. Central Bank of India, 2003 (1) RSA 440 (DB) upheld the claim. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the scheme became effective as soon as it was notified in the official Gazette and plea that the employee did not know about the scheme could not be accepted. He relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh B.Chauhan Vs. Punjab National Bank and others (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 262. 6. Even though, normally option is required to be exercised strictly in terms of the scheme but in the given case where a valid ground is made out for delay in exercise of option, hyper-technical stand cannot be taken to deny pension which the employee may have earned and may be eligible after completion of requisite period of service. This being the situation, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (DAYA CHAUDHARY) July 03, 2009 JUDGE raghav Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter ........Yes/No L.P.A.No.99 of 2009 -3- L.P.A.No.99 of 2009 -4-