[1] The petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed the following relief in paragraph No.18(A).
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent Bank to consider the case of the petitioner and release family pension to the widow of the deceased employee as per the Central Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations and to pay all other pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
[2] The case of the petitioner is that her husband was an employee working as Assistant Officer under the respondent No.3. He had initially joined the respondent Central Bank of India as Clerk on 28.04.1994 and worked at various branches in different villages of Saurashtra Region. He was to retire from the service of the respondent Bank with effect from 31.05.2026 but unfortunately he died while in service on 24.09.2011. The petitioner has further averred that her deceased husband had opted for pension and, therefore, after demise of her husband, she submitted necessary application for release of pension and other retiral benefits. However, to her shock and surprise, the respondent Bank forwarded a cheque of Rs.5,50,550/- with forwarding letter dated 15.02.2012 stating that the said amount was aggregate of Bank contribution and employee s contribution. The petitioner refused to accept the said letter with the cheque on the ground that her husband had opted for pension scheme and, therefore, the question of giving amount of Bank s contribution did not arise. The petitioner has further averred that her husband used to maintain all necessary correspondences with the Bank in his personal file and it was found from the file that her husband had opted for pension in the year 1995 and the Bank had sent acknowledgment to her husband for acceptation of the pension scheme. The petitioner has further averred that the documents annexed with the petition would go to show that her husband had opted for pension scheme and, therefore, the Bank was not justified in refusing the benefit of family pension to the petitioner.
[2.1] The petition is resisted by the respondent Bank by filing affidavit-in-reply dated 15.02.2013. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit to the said affidavit-in-reply.
[3] I have heard learned advocates for the parties.
[4] Learned advocate Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for the petitioner submitted that there is enough evidence available on record to establish that the deceased husband of the petitioner had opted for pension. He submitted that the Bank had also acknowledged the acceptation of the option exercised by the deceased husband of the petitioner of pension. He submitted that in the Staff and Service Record at Annexure F in respect of the deceased husband of the petitioner, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner had opted for pension as per the pension scheme. He submitted that after deceased husband of the petitioner had opted for pension, every month deduction towards the pension contribution was made from salary of the deceased husband which is found from Provident Fund Deduction list at Annexure H and there was no contribution from the Bank which clearly goes to suggest that the deduction was only towards pension. He submitted that if the deceased husband of the petitioner had not opted for pension and continued to be the member of the Contribution Provident Fund (C.P.F.), the contribution would not have been deducted only from the salary of the deceased husband of the petitioner, but the Bank s contribution also would have been deducted and deposited in the account of C.P.F. He drew the attention of the Court to the salary slips of the deceased husband of the petitioner for the month of August and September, 2011 wherein also, it is clearly mentioned that the deceased husband of the petitioner had opted for pension. He submitted that in the pension scheme of the Central Bank of India, contribution of only an employee is required to be deducted from his salary and the Bank is not required to contribute. He submitted that in the case of the petitioner as stated above, the Bank had stopped contributing any amount for the deceased husband of the petitioner which would clearly establish that the deceased husband of the petitioner was governed by the pension scheme. He submitted that the respondent Bank has not disputed the entry as regards exercise of the option for pension by the deceased husband of the petitioner in the documents produced on record and, therefore, the bank is not justified in refusing the benefits of family pension to the petitioner. He, thus, urged to allow the petition and grant reliefs as prayed for in the petition.
[5] As against the above arguments, learned advocate Mr.Kirit Macwan for the respondents submitted that in the Employee s Provident Fund statement of 31st March 2010 against the option for pension No is recorded and at the bottom of the said statement, note No.1 is relevant whereby the member of the fund was requested to satisfy himself / herself as to the correctness of the statement and discrepancies, and if there be any to bring to the notice of the Bank. He submitted that if such entry / statement was not correct, it was for deceased husband of the petitioner to bring to the notice of the Bank, but deceased husband of the petitioner had never disputed the correctness of the above entry / statement and, therefore, such entry was presumed to be correctly recorded as per which no option was exercised by the deceased husband of the petitioner for pension. He submitted that deceased husband of the petitioner expired in the month of September 2011 and during the time from 31.03.2010 to the death of the deceased husband of the petitioner, at no point of time, deceased husband of the petitioner had made any grievance about recording No against option of pension column. He submitted that other benefits available to the deceased husband of the petitioner were already given to the petitioner and in absence of any other proof about the deceased husband s accepting the pension scheme, the petitioner cannot be conferred family pension benefits. He, thus, urged to dismiss the petition.
[6] Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the record of the case, it appears that the Central Bank of India through its Chief Officer acknowledged the receipt of the application of deceased husband of the petitioner for option to join the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Fund which is found at Annexure A. It is stated in the said acknowledgment that the application of the deceased husband of the petitioner has been found to be in order and the option has been accepted and registered. It is further stated that with the deceased husband joining the pension scheme, the balance of the Bank s contribution of Provident Fund, and the credit of the deceased husband of the petitioner has been transferred to pension fund. Though in affidavit-in-reply, it is stated that Annexure E is erroneous communication which is being misused by the petitioner, however, the said acknowledgment is supported by other evidence available on record. Annexure F is the copy of the Staff and Service Record dated 14.11.2008 maintained by the Bank which is found duly signed by the Branch Manager. In the said Staff and Service Record, it is clearly mentioned at Sr.No.41 that the petitioner had opted for pension as per pension rules. In the communication dated 15.11.2008 at Annexure G, Jam Khambhalia Branch of the Bank had informed to the Regional Officer at Jamnagar that on careful perusal of service file of the deceased husband of the petitioner, they found acknowledgment receipt from the Pension Department, Central Office, Mumbai about the application of the pension of the deceased husband of the petitioner, acceptance and registration of his option at their end for the same. The copy of the same was enclosed. In the statement for Provident Fund Deduction list for August 2010 for the employees of the Bank at Annexure H, against the name of the deceased husband of the petitioner, deduction of Rs.1,650/- from salary of the deceased husband of the petitioner is mentioned and in the last column, PEN is mentioned. In the said statement, for first two employees in the last column CPF is mentioned and for rest of the employee PEN is mentioned. This is also one of the evidence suggesting that the contribution towards pension from salary of the deceased husband of the petitioner was being deducted and no contribution from the Bank was deposited.
[7] The above statement reflecting no contribution from the Bank is in consonance with the Employees Pension Regulation, 1995 placed on record at page No.41 whereunder the contribution of the Bank was to be credited to the fund constituted for the purpose of pension. Not only this but except stating in the reply at page No.66 that Annexures F, G and H might not be the record of the Pension Department, but they are part of the record of the respondent Bank, it is not the case of the respondents that the deceased husband of the petitioner had either got up such documents or manipulated with the record of the Bank. In any case, the respondents have not denied the existence of the above documents. The only stand on the part of the respondent Bank is that an Employee s Provident Fund Statement for the period ending on 31.03.2010 at Annexure - R/A-1 page No.59 No is mentioned against option for pension and the deceased husband of the petitioner has not disputed the correctness of the same. However, from the very same statement, what clearly appears is that there was continuous deduction towards the contribution of the deceased husband of the petitioner from his salary whereas there was no contribution from the Bank for each month for the account of the deceased husband of the petitioner. If such non-contribution of the Bank is considered as reflected in Provident Fund Deduction List for the month of August 2010 at Annexure H, page No.34, it clearly appears that the word No mentioned in Employee s Provident Fund Statement for the period ending of 31.03.2010 at Annexure - R/A-1 appeared to be not correctly recorded because in the statement at Annexure H for six of the employees including the deceased husband of the petitioner, a clear mention about the option exercised by the employee is found recorded as per which deceased husband of the petitioner is shown to have opted for pension and against his account only his contribution is shown whereas there is no contribution of the Bank. This also goes to suggest that there was no contribution of the Bank and, therefore, the entry of pension reflected in all other documents was correctly made. In view of the above, the stand taken by the respondent Bank appears to be contrary to its own record and cannot be accepted. The petition is, therefore, required to be allowed.
[8] In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as covered in Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 and release the family pension to the petitioner being widow of deceased employee as per the Central Bank of India (Employees ) Pension Regulation, 1995 and pay all other benefits available to the petitioner under the said regulations within a period of three months from the receipt of the copy of this judgment and order. Rule is made absolute.
(C.L.SONI, J.) vijay Page 7 of 7