Santhakumari Amma v. Central Bank of India and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/22ND SRAVANA, 1935 ## WA.No. 1814 of 2010 ------------------------WP(C) 30523/2006 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 17-09-2010 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, CHANDERMUKHI NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. 2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, PENSION DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE CHANDERMUKHI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021. 3. REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, POST BOX NO.2400 G.O.TOWER, IIND FLOOR, PALLIMUKKU KOCHI-682016, PRESENTLY AT REGIONAL OFFICE METRO PLACE, 1ST FLOOR, OPP.ERNAKULAM TOWN RAILWAY STATION, COCHIN-682018. 4. REGIONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO, 5129 NO.2A CRESCENT ROAD, BANGALORE-500 001. ## BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.P.THANKAPPAN NAIR, 'SREEYARS', KOYONKARA THRIKARIPUR P.O., KASARAGODE-671316. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## APPENDIX ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES (PENSION) REGULATIONS 1995 //True copy// uj. ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & K.VINOD CHANDRAN,J.** -----------------------------------W.A.No.1814 OF 2010 ------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of August, 2013 ## JUDGMENT ## **Manjula Chellur,C.J.** ## Respondent/writ petitioner approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i) a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exts.P2 and P8 as the same are illegal and arbitrary and are violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. ii) a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents to accept the exercise of option for pension scheme by the petitioner as provided in Central Bank of India Employee's (Pension) Regulations, 1993 and to grant her pension as provided under the Regulations with effect from 26/10/1987, the date of death of the husband of the petitioner. According to the respondent/writ petitioner, Ext.P10 regulations came into effect from 1/11/1993 on the basis of settlement under Industrial Disputes Act between WA 1814/10 2 Indian Banks' Association and Workmen Unions/Officers' Organization on 29/10/1993. Consequently, the scheme introduced by the appellant Bank was known as Central Bank of India Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1993 which came into force with retrospective effect from 1/1/1986. 2. The writ petitioner is the wife of a deceased employee, who claims entitlement for family pension as per the above regulations. According to her, Ext.P3 circular was issued by the appellant Bank to inform the family members of the deceased employees about the introduction of pension scheme and also possibility of exercising option to avail of the pension scheme by the family members of employee who died before the introduction of pension scheme. However, she was not intimated about introduction of pension scheme as indicated at Ext.P3, is her contention. Hence, she could not submit an application on or before the cut off date, therefore, there is no justification in denying the pension option claimed by the writ petitioner. 3. This was seriously contested by the WA 1814/10 3 appellant Bank. The learned Judge however, opining that the cut off date of 26/1/1996 is not fixed in any statutory provisions and the said date is only fixed as per Ext.P3 circular issued by the Central Bank of India, found that it is not a statutory cut off date. Hence, the appellant Bank could not have denied the benefit flowing from the regulations on the ground of delay in submitting the application, was the finding. Aggrieved by the same the appellant Bank is before us. 4. According to the appellant Bank, the scheme was introduced for the benefit of the family members of the employees who retired on or after 1/1/1986 but died before 1/11/1993 subject to exercising option within a period of 120 days from the date of publication of the regulations in the Gazette published on 29/9/1995. Therefore, the option ought to have been exercised on or before 26/1/1996. As the application was submitted by the writ petitioner in the year 1999-2000, the appellant Bank had no other option than to reject the same, as it was submitted beyond the period of WA 1814/10 4 cut off date fixed in the regulations. Therefore, the opinion of the learned Single Judge was challenged as erroneous and sought for setting aside the said judgment. 5. We have gone through Annexure-A Regulation which is known as Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 and relevant Chapter for the purpose of this appeal is Chapter II under the heading “Application & Eligibility”. Both Clause 7 (a) and 7(b) are applicable so far as the case of the writ petitioner which reads as under: “(7) were in the service of the Bank during any time on or after the 1[st] day of January, 1986 and had died while in service on or before the 31[st] day of October, 1993 or had retired on or before the 31[st] day of October, 1993 but died before the notified date in which case their family shall be entitled to the pension or the family pension as the case may be under these regulations, if the family of the deceased,- (a) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund; and (b) refund within sixty days of the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days WA 1814/10 5 specified in clause (a) above the entire amount of the Bank's contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Bank; As per the above provisions, in order to exercise the option for pension, the employee ought to have been in service on or after 1/1/1986 and ought to have expired while in service, on or before 31/10/1993. We are not concerned with other dates in clause (7). Apparently, the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was in service on and after 1/1/1986 and he died in 1987, while in service. Therefore, condition in first part of clause (7) is complied with. Then, the only requirement to entitle the writ petitioner for the benefit of the scheme is to comply with the conditions enumerated under sub clause (a) and (b) in clause (7) as stated above. So far as the first condition, the time limit within which she could exercise the option was within 120 days from the notified date, even as per the Central Bank of India WA 1814/10 6 (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 made under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970; after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and previous sanction of the Central Government. Apparently, the Gazette notification was on 29/9/1995 and 120 days would be on or before 26/1/1996. Therefore, there is no justification in the opinion of the learned Single Judge that the cut off date is not fixed in any statutory provisions. From the regulations it is very clear that 120 days has to be counted in order to fix the cut off date. So far as the second condition, apart from exercising option as stated in clause (a), the family had to remit back the contribution of Provident Fund along with interest accrued at the rate of 6% per annum within 60 days of expiry of the said period of 120 days. As mentioned at clause (a), in the absence of complying with condition at (a) the question of complying with second condition at clause (b) would not arise, so far as the present writ petitioner. In other words, neither condition at clause (a) nor condition at WA 1814/10 7 clause (b) came to be complied with by the writ petitioner. 6. Only one relevant ground raised in the writ petition is, she was not intimated about the regulations as stated in Ext.P3 circular. Though she contends, only in 1999 she came to know about the scheme, she has not given any details how she came to know of the scheme in 1999 and through which source of information. Further there was wide publicity of the scheme being introduced, based on the regulations having come into existence, as clearly indicated in the counter affidavit of the appellant Bank. In that view of the matter, the stand of the writ petitioner that she was not aware of the scheme till 1999 cannot be sustained. So far as the circular is concerned, it was given only with the intention of extending benefit to the family members of the deceased employees. A reading of Ext.P3 never contemplates notice to the family members of the deceased employee individually. It only contemplates proper information regarding the scheme. Having regard to the number of employees who retired from service, so also in WA 1814/10 8 service, one cannot expect appellant Bank to issue individual notices. It will not be possible for the appellant Bank to serve such individual notices. We place reliance for the said proposition in the decision of **Jai Singh B. Chauhan v. Punjab National Bank and others (2005 (6) SCC 262).** In the light of the above observations and reasonings, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, consequently dismissing the writ petition. **MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE.** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** uj.