Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by petitioner Sardar Singh, inter -alia, with prayer that the communication dated 16.05.2012 (Annexure -11) sent to the petitioner by Assistant General Manager, Punjab National Bank in its Provident Fund and Pension Department, Head Office, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, declining to accept his option switching over to the pension scheme in lieu of provident fund scheme, may be set aside and respondents be directed to give him benefit of pension scheme on his depositing back the amount of provident fund with the respondent Bank.
(2.) PETITIONER was appointed on the post of Guard with respondent Bank on 10.09.1986. On attaining the age of superannuation, petitioner retired from the services of the Bank on 31.01.2008. Petitioner was member of the Provident Fund Scheme, number of his provident fund account being PF Account No. 74652. As per the Banking Employees Service Regulation and IX Bipartite Settlement and joint note dated 27.04.2010 the respondent Bank extended benefit of pension to its employees in lieu of the provident fund for which options were invited from eligible persons. The PF and Pension Fund Department of the respondent Bank vide Circular dated 21.09.2010 issued notification for submission and approval of pension option. It also made its branch offices responsible for sending option with complete documents and after checking the correct information and the amount etc. It was thereafter that vide Circular dated 24.06.2011 another option in terms of IX Bipartite Settlement was asked from the employees within sixty days. Shri Brij Kishor Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that petitioner submitted his option to respondent No. 4 - Branch Manager, Punjab national Bank, Rudawal, District Bharatpur, where the petitioner was posted. Copy of the option has been placed on record at Annexure -4. The PF and Pension Fund Department of the respondent Bank issued a Circular dated 16.08.2010 by which the second option was given to the persons who were covered thereby and retired from bank services. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was hopeful that he would get benefit of pension as per the Banking Regulation and 9th Bipartite Settlement. However, he was shocked to learn that the Chief Manager of the PF and Pension Fund Department sent a letter to the Chief Manager HRDD stating that pension option of petitioner is invalid as he deposited lesser amount and the respondent Bank sent this information to petitioner on 23.03.2011. Petitioner submitted representation to the respondents Bank on 25.04.2011 contending that due amount has been deposited by Branch Manager of the respondent Bank from his account. Even if there was any inaccuracy in calculation or otherwise lesser amount has been deducted by the Branch Manager from his account, the petitioner cannot be held responsible as it was the Branch Office which was to check the papers before processing the matter.
(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that when nothing was done, petitioner again submitted representation on 07.05.2012 reiterating his request to the General Manager, HRD of the respondent Bank. Respondents however vide letter dated 16.05.2012 informed that it has rejected the representation of the petitioner and conveyed that his option has been rejected. In doing so, respondents Bank acted in most arbitrary and unreasonable manner. It is argued that petitioner has therefore served a notice for demand of justice and thereafter filed present writ petition.;