- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. The husband of the petitioner, late Ram Nawal Rai, joined the service of the respondent-Allahabad Bank in the year 1962. He died in harness on 26-1-1994. On 29-9-1995, which was after the death of Ram Nawal Rai, the respondent-Bank had come out with a scheme known as Allahabad Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. These Regulations came into force on 29-9-1995. Besides other things, the said scheme provided for grant of family pension. One of the condition therein was that only such employees would be entitled to the benefit of the Regulations who had been in service of the Bank on or before 1-1- 1986. The last date of opting for such scheme was 120 days from the Regulations of 1995 coming into force (i. e. upto 29-1- 1996 ). The petitioner, as widow of the employee, applied under the said Regulations on 16-6-1998 for grant of family pension. Since the respondent-Bank refused to grant the benefit of the Regulations of 1995 to the petitioner on the ground that her application was not filed within the stipulated period of 120 days from the announcement of the scheme, this writ petition has been filed with the prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent-Bank to pay family pension to the petitioner, alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
(2.) I have heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri Himanshu Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage. The respondent-Bank does not dispute that the petitioner would have been entitled to the benefit of grant of family pension under the scheme (Regulations of 1995) if her application had been filed within the stipulated period of 120 days with effect from 29-9-1995 but since her application was filed only on 16-6- 1998, the stand of the respondent-Bank is that she would thus not be entitled to such benefit. In support of his submission Sri Tewari has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Singh B. Chauhan v. Punjab National Bank, 2005 (3) LBESR 88 (SC) : 2005 AIR SCW 3664. On the other hand, Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the widow of a deceased employee and since earlier she had no knowledge of the pension scheme, she could not apply within the stipulated time. Reliance has also been placed on the circular issued by the Bank on 16-11-1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) wherein it has been provided that the concerned Branch Manager of the Bank would be obliged to send a copy of the Regulations of 1995 to each retired employee or family members of the deceased employee, at their last known permanent address. In reply, it has been submitted by Sri Tewari that wide publicity of the Regulations had been given by the Indian Banks' Association as well as the respondent-Bank, and that the Indian Banks' Association had also issued a letter dated 21-11-1995 to the effect that press notifications with regard to the scheme had been released by the Association in English and vernacular language Newspapers, hence there was no need for the bank to separately notify the scheme. As such, it has been submitted by Sri Tewari that as the letter of the Indian Banks' Association was issued on 21-11-1995, which was subsequent to the circular of the respondent-Bank dated 16-11-1995 (providing for individual intimation to the retired employees or family members of the deceased employees), the letter was not required to be complied with.
(3.) IN paragraph 13 of the writ petition, it has been categorically stated that at no point of time had the permanent address of the petitioner ever changed and that the Bank authorities had never intimated the petitioner, or any other family member of the petitioner of the Regulations of 1995 or the pension scheme of the respondent-Bank, and thus, in such circumstances, the petitioner had been deprived of the benefit of opting for family pension within the time prescribed. Such averments have not been denied in the counter-affidavit, except for taking recourse to the issuance of the letter dated 21-11- 1995 by the INdian Banks' Association. IN support of his case that denial of grant of family pension was unjustified merely because of the petitioner filing the application with some delay, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of S. K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway, (2003) 1 UPLBEC 247. 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.;