- (1.) THIS Writ Petition has been made by the petitioner for the purpose of commanding the respondents to accept the application of the petitioner dated 6. 1. 1996 opting the pension scheme under the Office Memorandum dated 1. 1. 1996 and fix pension with effect from 1. 1. 2001 and other retrial benefits and also interest thereon.
(2.) BEFORE coming to this Court under this Writ Petition, in the earlier occasion the petitioner filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 41907 of 2001 (Balbir Singh v Chairman/managing Director, Bank of India and others) wherein under an order dated 8. 5. 2002, a Division Bench of this Court directed to consider the 'representation of the petitioner dated 17. 3. 2001 expeditiously preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of the said order. The order impugned herein is the rejection of the representation of the writ petitioner disallowing the acceptance of the option saying that the same was received out of time. From the internal communication of the Bank, it appears that on 29. 1. 1996, the appropriate option forms, which had been submitted, were forwarded to the appropriate authority. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that whatever applications exercising options were made, the same were made prior to such date. It is also to be recorded herein that the last date of acceptance of option was 26. 1. 1996, which was Friday as well as the Republic Day. Therefore, the time period has to be extended upto 27. 1. 1996, which was Saturday. In any event, 29. 1. 1996 was Monday which, according to us, is very relevant date for the purpose of the consideration in view of the circumstances as above in respect of the acceptance of the option.
(3.) UNDER the order of rejection, it has been stated by the authority that when the option was given by the Bank to all its employees during January, 1996 for opting pension, no letter of option was received from the petitioner, and even till the year 2000 the list of pension optees forwarded by the erstwhile U. P. Zonal Office to Head Office did not include the name of the petitioner. It is also clarified that till April, 1998 while the petitioner was working as the Deputy Manager (Administration) of the Bank's Moradabad Branch and the entire salary process of the Branch, including segregated Provident Fund remittance was being effected by the petitioner, his contribution of Provident Fund was regularly being deducted from the salary and remitted to Head Office including Bank's contribution in the" case of the petitioner, which clearly indicates that the petitioner was well aware that he was being treated as a Provident Fund optee by the Bank and not a Pension optee. Significantly enough from the statement of Bank dated 18. 4. 2001 (Annex-ure-19) it appears that the petitioner is not the pensioner but his provident fund contribution on the part of the Bank was stopped from May, 1998. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that there is a mistake on the part of the respondents in respect of the option. In other words, unless there is option, there is no question of not making any contribution as provident fund optee. Therefore, we are of the view that there cannot be any refusal from filing option. The only refusal is with regard to delay in acceptance of option, and when it appears to this Court, there is sufficient reason to disbelieve the statements of the Bank particularly in view of Annexure-19 being statement of Bank in respect of terminal benefits.;