The petitioner in this case joined the first respondent bank on 11.11.1974 as a part time sweeper and confirmed as a peon in the year 1986. On 25.8.1994, the bank issued staff circular No.4085 relating to the pension scheme, called Union Bank of India Employees' Pension Regulations 1993. In terms of the said scheme, the employees, who joined the services of the bank on or after 01.11.1993, will be eligible to come under the pension scheme. Under the scheme, if the employees in service of the bank as on 31.10.93 opted for the pension scheme, contribution to the provident fund stands transferred to the pension fund. The option has to be exercised by the employees on or before 30.9.1994. According to the petitioner, she opted for the pension scheme through the Branch Manager, Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai. The case of the petitioner is that after she opted for the pension scheme, the provident fund statement showed that the employee alone contributed to the provident fund and the employer did not make his contribution in terms of Union Bank of India Employees' Pension Regulation Scheme 1993. The petitioner was under the impression that she is covered under the pension scheme. The petitioner opted for voluntary retirement and was relieved from the services of the bank on 20.1.2001 under the Union Bank voluntary retirement scheme 2000-01. On such voluntary retirement, she came to know that the petitioner is not shown as a pension optee. Therefore, on 9.4.2001, the petitioner made a representation to the Manager, P.F. Section, to verify the records and consider her case as a pension optee particularly in view of the fact that the bank's contribution towards provident fund is not shown in the provident fund statement for more than six years. Thereafter, on 19.7.2001, the personal department of the bank has intimated that the petitioner has not opted for pension as per records. However, a further direction was issued to the Senior Manager of Nungambakkam Branch, Union Bank of India that the petitioner's contribution towards provident fund from April 1996 to January 2001 should be made immediately to the provident fund department so as to settle the provident fund dues to the petitioner. Apparently, only at the behest of the petitioner, such an action has been taken by the respondent bank.
2. It is stated in letter dated 16.8.2001 that the contribution towards provident fund from April 1996 to January 2001 was at Rs.21,864/- and thereafter on 1.9.2001, a memo of account with the working sheet of the provident fund account of the petitioner shows that the bank's contribution with interest is Rs.79,177.03. On such deposit to the provident fund department, the petitioner states that she has withdrawn the amount without prejudice. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the department to consider her claim of pension optee stating that since the bank has not made any contribution from April 1996 to January 2001, the plea of the petitioner that she has opted for pension scheme should be accepted. The contention of the bank that no such option was exercised by the petitioner is a belated stand taken to overcome the claim of the petitioner.
3. In the counter filed by the bank, in paragraph 3, it has been clearly accepted that the bank's contribution towards provident fund was paid on 31.8.2001 only long after the retirement. According to the bank, the petitioner did not opt till 30.9.1994 for pension scheme to come within the purview of 1993 Scheme. It was further contended that the petitioner received entire provident fund contribution including the management contribution and therefore, the question of opting under the pension scheme does not arise.
4. Assuming without admitting that the petitioner did not opt for the 1993 pension scheme, one fact is clear that on and from April 1996, the Bank has not made its contribution to the provident fund in respect of the petitioner and it is only after retirement of the petitioner, the entire contribution has been deposited after a claim for pension by the petitioner. This fact gives credence to the claim of the petitioner that she opted for pension scheme. If petitioner does not fall in 1993 scheme, she will be entitled to pension scheme which came into effect from 1995 for which the date for exercising the option is 26.1.1996.
5. The bank has, in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, accepted the mistake by not remitting the contribution to the provident fund from April 1996 to January 2001. This could be so because of the petitioner opted for pension scheme in the year 1995 and the bank stopped its contribution to Employee provident fund. The petitioner employee alone has made the contribution towards provident fund. If this is accepted, the bank cannot resile from its obligation to accept the petitioner's claim that she will be entitled to the benefit under the pension scheme with effect from 29.9.1995 as stated in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit.
6. In such situation, the respondent bank offered a proposal to the petitioner to redeposit the entire provident fund contribution together with 6% interest so as to consider the claim under the pension scheme. If the petitioner re-deposits the amount, which has already been withdrawn by her, the claim under pension scheme gets revived. The learned counsel for the petitioner after consultation with the petitioner has filed an affidavit and the relevant portion reads as follows:-
" I submit that in response to the proposal the second respondent has filed a memo dated 29.6.2009 furnishing the calculation of the amount which I have to refund to the bank.
The calculation is as follows:-
I submit that I further understand that I have to pay the simple interest until the date of actual refund made to the bank. I undertake to pay the amount of Rs.1,16,362.02 as on 29.6.2009 with further interest until the date of refund."
7. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks pension with effect from 20.1.2001, (i.e.) the date of retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme. The respondent Bank has also agreed to this proposal. Once, it is accepted that the petitioner has opted under the pension scheme and she is willing to deposit the amount which has been withdrawn by her, the plea for pension has to be accepted as bonafide. Due to lapses on the part of the respondent bank, the petitioner cannot be put to prejudice.
8. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount, which has been withdrawn by her with 6% interest from 1.9.2001 till the date of actual deposit as stated above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent bank, having accepted the proposal, is directed to collect the amount to be deposited by the petitioner with 6% interest till the date of actual deposit. As and when the petitioner makes such a deposit, the respondent bank has to issue necessary proceedings and process the pension papers in accordance with law and pay the pension. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
ra To
1. The General Manager, Union Bank of India, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021.
2. The Sr. Manager (Personnel), Dept. of Personnel, Nodal Regional Office, Chennai.
3. The Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Nungambakkam Branch, Chennai 34