# Smt. Geeta Varshney v. Allabahad Bank Thru' M.D. H.O. Calcutta and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 91
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-01-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33410 of 2002
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Dinesh Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-geeta-varshney-v-allabahad-bank-thru-m-d-h-o-calcutta-and-others-42271
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Sri Himanshu Tiwari
C.S.C.

Allahabad Bank Employees (Pension)
Regulation
1993-Regulation-3-Family
Pension
Scheme
introduced
w.e.f.06.09.1994-husband of petitioner
died on 09.07.1991in accident-after 20
years
continuous
services-petitioner
applied for pension on 27.11.1997rejected on ground of delay-and not
applied in prescribed format within 120
days-admittedly such format or scheme
never supplied by Bank-held-entitled for
family pension in view of Smt. Shushila
Rai case.

Held: Para 17

In the present case also the facts are
similar to the above case and even on a
better footing. If the argument of the
Bank is also accepted that no application
was moved by the petitioner as alleged
in the writ petition on 16.11.1995 or in
December,
1995,
moving
of
an
application
along
with
form
on
27.11.1997 is not denied. In the case of
Smt. Sushila Rai (supra) the application
was moved on 16.06.1998 after lapse of
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
almost three years while in the present
case it was moved on 27.11.1997 and
the
only
ground
taken
by
the
respondents also is of delay in moving
the aforesaid application and also of not
complying the conditions given therein.
The petitioner has also stated that she
was not supplied with the copy of the
said
scheme
inspite
of
the
clear
instructions of the Bank. It is also not
the case of the Bank that the petitioner
was supplied with the said scheme or the
said scheme was sent at her permanent
address. The Bank has also not taken any
other ground to reject the claim of the
petitioner. Therefore, the case of the
petitioner is fully covered by the decision
in the case of Smt. Sushila Rai (supra).
Case law discussed:
(2007) 3 UPLBEC (Sum) 110; (2003) 1
UPLBEC 247; (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1474

## Text

1 All] Smt. Geeta Varshney V. Allabahad Bank Thru' M.D. H.O. Calcutta and others
91

13. In the facts and circumstances of
this
particular
case
and
the
view
expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the cases mentioned hereinabove, I am of
the view that since complaint presents a
different picture altogether and the
prosecution case has set out in the
complaint is at complete variance with
that in the police challan, proper course to
adopt is to direct that two cases should be
tried together by the appropriate court but
not consolidated i.e. the evidence should
be recorded separately in both the cases
one after the other except to the incident
that the witnesses for the prosecution who
are common to both the cases be
examined in one case and their evidence
be read as evidence in the other.

14. In view of the matter, the
impugned order dated 06.07.2011 passed
by the learned Magistrate issuing process
and summoning the applicants under
sections 302, 201, 120B IPC is well in
conformity in law and does not suffer
from any material illegality or irregularity
and therefore does not warrant any
interference in this application.

15. This application is finally
disposed
of
with
the
observation
mentioned hereinabove.

16. Let a copy of this order be send
to
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Shahjahanpur for its communication and
necessary compliance.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI,J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33410 of 2002

Smt. Geeta Varshney

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Allabahad Bank Thru' M.D. H.O. Calcutta
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for he Petitioner:
Sri G.S. Srivastava
Sri Sharad Kumar
Sri V.P. Varshney

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Himanshu Tiwari
C.S.C.

Allahabad Bank Employees (Pension)
Regulation
1993-Regulation-3-Family
Pension
Scheme
introduced
w.e.f.06.09.1994-husband of petitioner
died on 09.07.1991in accident-after 20
years
continuous
services-petitioner
applied for pension on 27.11.1997rejected on ground of delay-and not
applied in prescribed format within 120
days-admittedly such format or scheme
never supplied by Bank-held-entitled for
family pension in view of Smt. Shushila
Rai case.

Held: Para 17

In the present case also the facts are
similar to the above case and even on a
better footing. If the argument of the
Bank is also accepted that no application
was moved by the petitioner as alleged
in the writ petition on 16.11.1995 or in
December,
1995,
moving
of
an
application
along
with
form
on
27.11.1997 is not denied. In the case of
Smt. Sushila Rai (supra) the application
was moved on 16.06.1998 after lapse of
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
almost three years while in the present
case it was moved on 27.11.1997 and
the
only
ground
taken
by
the
respondents also is of delay in moving
the aforesaid application and also of not
complying the conditions given therein.
The petitioner has also stated that she
was not supplied with the copy of the
said
scheme
inspite
of
the
clear
instructions of the Bank. It is also not
the case of the Bank that the petitioner
was supplied with the said scheme or the
said scheme was sent at her permanent
address. The Bank has also not taken any
other ground to reject the claim of the
petitioner. Therefore, the case of the
petitioner is fully covered by the decision
in the case of Smt. Sushila Rai (supra).
Case law discussed:
(2007) 3 UPLBEC (Sum) 110; (2003) 1
UPLBEC 247; (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1474

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta, J)

1. The instant writ petition has been
filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the
order
dated
12.05.2002
passed
by
respondent no. 4 as also a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents to
decide, fix and pay the monthly family
pension and also pay the arrears of pension
along with 18% interest from 18.7.1991.

2. The facts in brief are that the
husband of the petitioner late Sharad
Chandra Varshney was appointed as clerk
in the Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred
to as 'Bank') on a permanent post on
21.05.1971 and later on he was promoted
as Branch Manager and worked on the said
post till 19.07.1991when unfortunately he
met with an accident and died; that after
the death of the husband of the petitioner
the Bank appointed the petitioner on
compassionate ground on the post of
Clerk-cum-Cashier and she is still in the
service of the Bank; that prior to 1993,
there was no provision for pension to the
employees of the Bank and after great
pursuation the Allahabad Bank Pension
Scheme
was
announced
under
the
settlement with the employees union and
the Bank to provide benefit of pension to
the employees; that the said scheme was
named as 'Allahabad Bank Employees
(Pension) Regulation, 1993' (hereinafter
referred to as 'Pension Regulation') which
was circulated amongst the branch offices
by instruction circular no.3904 dated
06.09.1994
inviting
option
on
the
prescribed form; that the husband of the
petitioner served continuously for more
than 20 years and as such under the
provisions of the Pension Regulation, the
petitioner being widow of the deceased
employee, is entitled for the family
pension; that Regulation 3 provided
eligibility criteria for the employees
willing to exercise the option; that the
aforesaid scheme was not applicable to
petitioner's husband and the petitioner was
not eligible for getting family pension as
her husband had admittedly expired before
the stipulated date of 01.11.1993; that in
the year 1994-95 a new pension scheme
was introduced which is applicable to the
petitioner. In the new pension scheme
known as 'Allahabad Bank (Employees)
Pension Regulation, 1995 ' (hereinafter
referred to as '1995 Pension Regulations') a
comprehensive scheme was formulated
widening the scope for exercising option of
pension by the employees concerned or by
his widow in the event of the death of the
employee. The petitioner quoted the
provisions of Regulation 7 of 1995 Pension
Regulations which are reproduced below:-

" 7. Where in the service of the Bank
during any time on or after the Ist day of
January 1986 and had died while in
service on or before the 31st day of
October, 1993 or had retired on or before
1 All] Smt. Geeta Varshney V. Allabahad Bank Thru' M.D. H.O. Calcutta and others
93
the 31st 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) exercises an option in writing
within one hundred twenty days from the
notified date to become member of the
fund; and

(b) refunds within sixty days of the
expiry of the said period of one hundred
and twenty days 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 per
cent per annum from the date of settlement
of the provident fund account till the date
of refund of the aforesaid amount to the
Bank.

Chapter V Regulation No.34

34.Payment of pension or family
pension in respect of employees who
retired or died between 1.1.1986 to
31.10.1993:-

'1' - Employees who have retired from
the service of the Bank between the Ist day
of January, 1986 and the 31st day of
October, 1993 shall be eligible for pension
with effect from the Ist day of November,
1993.

'2'- The family of a deceased
employee governed by the provisions
contained
in
sub
regulation
7
of
Regulation 3 shall be eligible for family
pension with effect from the Ist day of
November, 1993."

3. The petitioner further submitted
that the husband of the petitioner had died
on 19.07.1991 i.e. between 1.1.1986 and
31.10.1993 , as such the petitioner is
entitled for family pension w.e.f. 1.11.1993
under
the
provisions
of
Pension
Regulation, 1995; that the petitioner after
the death of her husband submitted an
application and the form for pension duly
filled on 28.11.1994 and also made several
representations but she was not given the
family pension; that when the new Pension
Regulation,
1995
was
enforced
the
petitioner, apart from her earlier option,
again submitted her option being widow of
the deceased employee but the Bank did
not consider her case; that the Bank on
third occasion on 27.11.1997 got filled
another form of the family pension with
the assurance that she will get the family
pension after completion of all the
formalities; that the petitioner made several
representations and reminders, but the
Bank authorities deliberately did not settle
the family pension of the petitioner and the
petitioner was left with no option but to
file Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14881 of
2001 before this court and the said writ
petition was finally disposed of vide order
dated 20.04.2001 directing the respondents
to decide the representation of the
petitioner; that when the respondents
inspite of the order of the court, did not
decide her representation she moved a
Contempt Petition against the respondent
and when the notices were issued and
served on the respondents in the contempt
petition, without applying their mind and
without giving an opportunity of hearing,
the respondents illegally decided the
representation of the petitioner rejecting
the same vide order dated 12.05.2002.

4. The respondents filed counter
affidavit and stated that the Bank had taken
94 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
sympathetic view after death of the
petitioner's husband and she was appointed
as Clerk-cum-Cashier on compassionate
ground and further her dues of provident
fund and gratuity were also released; that
under
the
settlement
between
the
Employees' Union and the Bank and to
provide benefit of pension to the intending
employees who were agreeable to exercise
their option in place of contributory fund
system a new Pension Regulation was
formulated and the same was circulated
amongst the branch offices of the Bank
inviting option on the prescribed format for
the different categories of intending
employees; that it is vehemently denied
that the respondents had not given said
circular
to
the
petitioner
or
other
employees.

5. The submission made by the
respondents in paragraph 7 of the counter
affidavit are quoted below:-

" 7(a) That the said Pension
Regulation, 1993 vide its Regulation 3
provided
eligibility
criteria
for
the
employees concerned willing to exercise
the
option
and
stipulated
that
the
Regulation shall apply to-

(I) Employees who joined service of
the Bank on or after 1st. November, 1993.;

(II) Employees in service of the bank
as on 31st October, 1993 and who exercise
an option in writing in response to the
bank's notice to this effect to become
members of the pension scheme and to
cease to be members of the Contributory
Provident Fund scheme with effect from
1st November, 1993 and irrevocably
authorize the bank or the trustee of the
contributory provident fund to transfer the
entire contribution of the bank along with
entire interest accrued thereon to the
credit of pension fund to be created for this
purpose.

(III) By way of special dispensation to
the employee who retired on or after 1st
January 1986 but before 1st November,
1993 provided that such employees apply
for it and on the format prescribed by the
bank and refund by the date decided by the
bank, the bank's entire contribution to the
provident fund including interest received
with further simple interest at the rate of 6
per cent per annum from the date of
withdrawal of the provident fund amount
till the date of refund.

7(b). That in view of the eligibility
criteria stipulated in Regulation 1993 and
as stated herein above in paragraph 7 (a),
the family pension format on which the
petitioner
purportedly
made
a
representation to the respondent bank was
irrelevant to the context since petitioner
was not eligible for getting family pension
in terms of the aforesaid eligibility criteria
inasmuch as the husband of the petitioner
admittedly expired before the stipulated
date of 1st November, 1993 as well as he
was not retired on or after 1st January,
1986 so in no way he could be considered
to be eligible for pension under any of the
eligibility criteria of the said scheme, at the
same time the scope of the "special
dispensation" to the employee is also not
applicable to his case as he was not retired
on or after 1986, rather he died in the year
1991."

6. It is further contended by the
respondents that in the year 1994-95 a
comprehensive
pension
regulation
applicable to all the nationalized banks was
formulated
widening
the
scope
for
exercising option for pension by the
1 All] Smt. Geeta Varshney V. Allabahad Bank Thru' M.D. H.O. Calcutta and others
95
employees concerned or by his widow in
the event of death of the employees; that
amongst other Regulation 3(7) of the
Pension Regulations is relevant for the
purposes of the present controversy and the
petitioner's case is covered as it provided
that it shall apply to all employees who
were in the service of the bank on or before
the 31st day of October, 1993. Sub
paragraph (a) of Regulation 3(7) provided
for exercising an option in writing within
one hundred and twenty days from the
notified date to become a member of the
Fund and sub paragraph (b) thereof
provided for refund within sixty days on
the expiry of the said period of one
hundred and twenty days 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 per cent per annum from the date of
settlement of the Provident Fund account
till the date of refund of the aforesaid
amount to the Bank.

7. The contention of the respondents
as made in sub paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of
paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit are
quoted below:-

"4. That thus option has to be
exercised within 120 days from the notified
date i.e. 29.09.1995 to become a member
of the fund viz. 27.01.1996 and further
refund of the entire amount of the Bank's
contribution to the Provident Fund was to
be made within sixty days of the expiry of
the said period of one hundred twenty days
with interest accrued thereon together with
a further simple interest at the rate of six
per cent per annum from the date of
settlement of the Provident Fund account
till the date of refund of the aforesaid
amount to the Bank.

5. That the said mandatory condition
of the Regulation 3(7) was not complied
with by the petitioner, inasmuch as neither
the option was made before 27.1.1996 nor
the
entire
amount
of
the
Bank's
contribution to the Provident Fund was
refunded by her.

6. That it is also relevant to mention
here that "Allahabad Bank (Employees)
Pension Regulations 1995" was framed in
the exercise of the power conferred by
clause (f) of sub section (2) of Section 19 of
the Banking Companies Act No.5 of 1970.
It has thus statutory force and its effects
could not be diluted nor amendment could
be made to it for bringing those persons
who have not complied with the mandatory
provisions given therein and not given
their option within the time provided in
terms of Regulations.

7. That the aforesaid "Allahabad
Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations,
1995" was duly circularized by the
respondent bank vide its instruction
circular
no.4318
dated
16.11.1995
amongst all branches and offices; the
petitioner at the relevant point of time was
posted at Maharajganj branch, Aligarh of
the respondent bank and despite having
full knowledge of the said circular the
petitioner did not submit her option being
the widow of late Sharad Chandra
Varshney for the family pension within the
time provided in terms of Regulation i.e.
27.1.1996."

8. The respondents further contended
that from the aforesaid propositions, it is
very much clear that the petitioner is not
entitled
for
family
pension
under
Regulation 1995 because she had not
complied with the mandatory provisions of
the said Regulations; that she submitted
96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
her option in the last week of December,
1995 and that the petitioner has set up a
new case by making an allegation that she
had submitted her option for family
pension in the last week of December,
1995 which is patently false.

9. The petitioner filed rejoinder
affidavit denying the allegations made in
the counter affidavit and reiterating her
stand taken in the writ petition.

10. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits
that
the
respondents
while
considering the case of the petitioner
rejecting her claim on the ground that
Regulations, 1993 are not applicable to the
petitioner and she is not eligible for the
pension. It is not the case of the petitioner
that her case is covered under Pension
Scheme, 1993 and on the contrary her case
is
fully
covered
by
1995
Pension
Regulations; that while considering the
applicability of Regulations 1995 the
respondents recorded a finding that the
petitioner did not submit application for
family pension by the stipulated cut off
date i.e. 27.1.1996 and as such the request
for family pension vide application dated
27.11.1997 could not be considered, which
is against the law and the facts; that while
deciding the representation the respondents
did not consider the earlier application
dated
16.11.1995
submitted
by
the
petitioner deliberately ignoring the fact that
the said application was submitted within
the stipulated time and as such the order
passed by the respondents rejecting the
representation of the petitioner is illegal
and
without
jurisdiction;
that
the
respondents had not disputed the fact that
the petitioner would have been entitled to
the benefit for grant of family pension
under 1995 Pension Regulations had her
application been filed within the stipulated
time and the only ground for rejecting her
representation is that the application was
moved only after expire of 120 days from
the date commencement of the pension
scheme; that the respondents have failed to
consider that the petitioner is the widow of
a deceased employee who expired on duty
in an accident and she had also earlier
given an application and filled the
proforma on 16.11.1995; that the circular
issued by the Bank on 16.11.1995 wherein
it has been provided that the concerned
Branch Manager of the Bank would be
obliged to send a copy of the Regulations,
1995 to each retired employee or family
member of the deceased employee was
never sent to the petitioner at her address
and the petitioner has been deprived from
opting for family pension though she had
given undertaking for refund of GPF
contribution with interest to the Bank and
that in cases of other employees the Bank
had informed them the calculated amount
of GPF contribution, but the petitioner was
not given any such information by the
Bank.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied on Smt. Sushila Rai vs.
Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank &
others (2007) 3 UPLBEC (Sum) 110,
S.K.Mastan Bee Vs. General Manager,
South Central Railway & another (2003)
1 UPLBEC 247 and Triloki Nath Yadav
Vs. Allahabad Bank and others (2003) 2
UPLBEC 1474.

13.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents submits that the petitioner had
not applied on the prescribed format within
the stipulated period of 120 days under the
1995
Pension
Regulations
and
the
1 All] Smt. Geeta Varshney V. Allabahad Bank Thru' M.D. H.O. Calcutta and others
97
allegation of filing an application dated
16,11,1995 in December, 1995 is incorrect
and as such the Bank has rightly rejected
her representation; that the petitioner is in
service of the Bank as a Cashier-cumClerk and she was fully aware of the new
pension scheme and she failed to submit
the application in the prescribed format
within the stipulated time and as such she
is not entitled to family pension and that
the petitioner has also failed to undertake
to refund the GPF contribution to the
Bank.

14. We are unable to accept the
contention raised by the learned counsel
for the respondents and we find force in
the contention raised by learned counsel
for the petitioner.

15. It is not disputed that the
petitioner's case is fully covered under the
new pension scheme which was introduced
in
the
year
1995
(1995
Pension
Regulations). The only ground of rejection
of claim of the petitioner was delay in
filing the application in the prescribed
format. The respondents have vehemently
denied the receipt of the application of the
petitioner in December, 1995. However,
there is no denial that an application was
got filled by the Bank on 27.11.1997. The
statement made by the petitioner in
paragraph 11 of the writ petition was not
denied by the Bank and on the contrary it
was admitted to the extent that the
application was given, however the bank
had not given any assurance that she will
get the family pension.

16. The decision in the case of Smt.
Sushila Rai (supra) has considered the
effect of delay in moving the application
by an employee. The facts of this case are
very much similar to the facts of the
present case. In that case the husband of
the petitioner Smt. Sushila Rai died in
harness on 26.01.1994. The Bank came out
with a scheme (1995 Pension Regulations)
which came into force on 29.09.1995,
beside other things, it provided for grant of
family pension one of the conditions
whereof was that only such employees
would be entitled to the benefit of the 1995
Regulations who had been in service of the
Bank on or before 01.01.1986 and the last
date for opting such scheme was 120 days
from the date of enforcement of the 1995
Pension Regulations. The widow of the
employee
applied
under
the
said
Regulations on 16.06.1998 for grant of
family pension and the respondent bank
refused to grant the said benefit on the
ground that the application was not filled
within the stipulated period of 120 days.
After hearing counsel for both the parties
the court observed as under:-

"Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and on perusal of the record
and
considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case, in my view, the
petitioner would be entitled to the grant of
family pension under the Regulations of
1995 on the basis of her application filed
on 16.6.1998. The submission of Sri
Tewari that individual intimation was not
required to be given, would not be
acceptable. There was no direction by the
Indian Banks' Association vide its letter
dated 21.11.1995 for not intimating the
individual retired employees or family
members of the deceased employees. In the
said letter, it had only been stated that the
individual Banks need not notify the same
through press. As such the Bank was
obliged to carry out the requirement of
intimation by the Bank in terms of the
circular dated 16.11.1995.
98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

In the case of Jai Singh B. Chauhan
(supra), the Supreme Court was dealing
with the case of a serving employee who
did not opt for the pension scheme within
the stipulated period of 120 days and had
thereafter made representation only on
4.5.1998 with a request to be covered
under the pension scheme and that too not
on the requisite form. When the same was
rejected by the Bank, the employee filed a
writ petition, which was dismissed and
ultimately the Apex Court also dismissed
the claim of the employee on the ground
that the publication of the scheme in the
official gazette would be construed as
sufficient notice to the employee of the
Bank. The case of a serving employee
opting for pension scheme in the year
1998, when the scheme had been issued in
1995 which provided for giving of option
within 120 days, would be distinct from
that of a widow of a deceased employee.
The circular dated 16.11.1995, as had
been issued by the respondent-Bank, was
neither placed before the Apex Court nor
was it applicable, as the claimant there
was a serving employee. By the circular
dated 16.11.1995, the Bank itself required
the issuance of notice to each retired
employee or family members of the
deceased employee, which was admittedly
not sent to the petitioner in this particular
case. Such requirement must have been
found necessary by the respondent-Bank
as a retired employee or family members
of the deceased employees could not be
having
information
of
the
scheme
promulgated by the Bank. On the
contrary, as publicity of the scheme was
given in the bank offices, there was no
such requirement of individual intimation
to the serving employees, as they would
have, in any case, come to know of the
scheme of the bank in the normal course.
In such view of the matter, the ratio of the
decision in Jai Singh B. Chauhan's case
would not be applicable to the facts of the
present case.

In the case of S.K. Mastan Bee
(supra), the Apex Court was dealing with
the case of grant of family pension to the
widow of a retired employee. In the said
case also, the claim of the widow was
rejected by the employer on the ground of
delay. In such facts, the Apex Court
directed payment of the entire arrears of
pension within three months and allowed
the writ petition with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
While allowing the writ petition, the Apex
Court made the following observations:-

"6. We notice that the appellant's
husband was working as a Gangman who
died while in service. It is on record that
the appellant is an illiterate who at that
time did not know of her legal right and
had no access to any information as to
her right to family pension and to enforce
her such right. On the death of the
husband
of
the
appellant,
it
was
obligatory for her husband's employee,
viz., railways, in this case to have
computed the family pension payable to
the appellant and offered the same to her
without her having to make a claim or
without driving her to a litigation. The
very denial of her right to family pension
as held by the learned Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench is an
erroneous decision on the part of the
railways and in fact amounting to a
violation of the guarantee assured to the
appellant under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
The
factum
of
the
appellant's lack of resource to approach
by the legal forum timely is not disputed
by the railways. Question then arises on
facts and circumstances of this case, the
Appellate
Bench
was
justified
in
1 All] Smt. Geeta Varshney V. Allabahad Bank Thru' M.D. H.O. Calcutta and others
99
restricting the past arrears of pension to a
period much subsequent to the death of
appellant's husband on which date she
had legally become entitled to the grant of
pension? In this case as noticed by us
herein above, the learned Single Judge
had rejected the contention of delay put
forth by the railways and taking note of
the appellant's right to pension and the
denial of the same by the railways
illegally considered it appropriate to
grant the pension with retrospective effect
from the date on which it became due to
her. The Division Bench also while
agreeing with the learned Single Judge
observed that the delay in approaching
the railways by the appellant for the grant
of family pension was not fatal inspite of
the same it restricted the payment of
family pension from a date on which the
appellant issued a local notice to the
railways i.e. on 1.4.1992. We think on the
facts of this case inasmuch as it was an
obligation of the railways to have
computed the family pension and offered
the same to the widow of its employee as
soon as it became due to her and also in
view of the fact her husband was only a
Gangman in the railways who might not
have left behind sufficient resources for
the appellant to agitate her rights and
also in view of the fact that the appellant
is an illiterate. The learned Single Judge,
in our opinion, was justified in granting
the relief to the appellant from the date
from which it became due to her, that is
the date of the death of her husband.

Consequently,
we
are
of
the
considered opinion that the Division
Bench fell in error in restricting that
period to a date subsequent to 1.4.1992."
(emphasis supplied)

In the present case also, the
entitlement of the petitioner for grant of
family pension is not denied by the
respondent-Bank. The sole reason for
refusing such benefit to the petitioner is
because of delay on behalf of the
petitioner in making such application
opting for the pension scheme. This Court
is of the clear view that in terms of their
own circular dated 16.11.1995, it was
obligatory on the part of the respondentBank to inform the retired employees or
family
members
of
the
deceased
employees, of the pension scheme at their
last known permanent address. In the
absence of the respondent-Bank having
fulfilled such obligation, in my view, the
respondent-Bank cannot refuse to grant
the benefit of the pension scheme to the
petitioner merely on the ground of delay.
In equity as well as under law, the
petitioner would be entitled to the benefit
of the family pension scheme under the
Regulations of 1995.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ
petition is allowed and it is directed that
the respondents shall give the petitioner
the benefit of the family pension under the
Allahabad Bank (Employees') Pension
Regulations, 1995 on the basis of the
application filed by the petitioner on
16.6.1998. The arrears of pension shall
be computed by the respondent-Bank
within three months from the date of filing
of a certified copy of this order before the
respondent no. 1, the Regional Manager,
Allahabad
Bank,
Regional
Office,
Mohaddipur, Gorakhpur and the entire
arrears shall be paid to the petitioner
within
one
month
thereafter.
The
petitioner shall also be entitled to
payment
of
future
family
pension
regularly month by month. In case of
default in making the payments within the
100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
aforesaid time schedule, the petitioner
would be entitled to 9% interest from the
date she is found entitled to such payment,
till actual payment. It is made clear that if
the payment is made within the stipulated
time, the respondent-Bank shall not be
liable to pay any interest. No order as to
costs."

17. In the present case also the facts
are similar to the above case and even on
a better footing. If the argument of the
Bank is also accepted that no application
was moved by the petitioner as alleged in
the writ petition on 16.11.1995 or in
December,
1995,
moving
of
an
application
along
with
form
on
27.11.1997 is not denied. In the case of
Smt. Sushila Rai (supra) the application
was moved on 16.06.1998 after lapse of
almost three years while in the present
case it was moved on 27.11.1997 and the
only ground taken by the respondents also
is of delay in moving the aforesaid
application and also of not complying the
conditions given therein. The petitioner
has also stated that she was not supplied
with the copy of the said scheme inspite
of the clear instructions of the Bank. It is
also not the case of the Bank that the
petitioner was supplied with the said
scheme or the said scheme was sent at her
permanent address. The Bank has also not
taken any other ground to reject the claim
of the petitioner. Therefore, the case of
the petitioner is fully covered by the
decision in the case of Smt. Sushila Rai
(supra).

18. In view of the above discussions,
the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The order dated 12.05.2002 passed by
respondent no.4 (Annexure-7 to the writ
petition) is quashed. It is directed that the
respondent shall give benefit of family
pension to the petitioner under the
Allahabad Bank (Employees) Pension
Regulation, 1995 on the basis the
application filed by her on 27.11.1997.

19. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.01.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37206 of 2000

Prem Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
XIIth Adj,Agra & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ranjit Saxena
Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha,
Sri H.N.Singh
Sri R.S.Kushwaha
Sri R.S.Kulshreshtha
Sri S.K.Kulshreshth
Smt. Anita Tripathi
Sri Sharat Chandra Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pradeep kumar
Sri R. Kumar
C.S.C.

Code of Civil Procedure-Order 41 Rule19-Application to re-admit and condone
delay in filing such application-rejected
on ground after transfer of appeal the
counsel put appearance-can not be
allowed to say absence knowledge-heldwhen counsel made endorsement that
his client not responding -court below
not justified in drawing inference of
knowledge-word-sufficient cause-to be
applied meaningful manner to sub serves
the end of justice and not to close the
door of justice-direction issued to decide