The Kerala High Court allowed this writ appeal by setting aside a single judge order. The court held the 2010 scheme did not apply as the husband died before the 1995 scheme, and the 1995 scheme clearly required an option within 120 days, which was not met.
Judgment of the learned Single Judge set aside; appeal allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2013/26TH ASHADHA, 1935
WA.No. 973 of 2013 ()
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8295/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06-03-2013.
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. UCO BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HEAD OFFICE DD 3 AND 4 SECTOR I, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKOTTA PIN- 700 064.
2. CHIEF OFFICER (PENSION CELL) PERSONAL DEPARTMENT, HEAD OFFICE, UCO BANK DD BLOCK, SECTOR 1, SALE LATE CITY KOLKOTTA - 700 064.
3. THE SENIOR MANAGER UCO BANK, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
P.V.BALAMANI AMMA
MAHALASKMI, SUB STATION ROAD, CHEVAYUR KOZHIKODE - 17.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.S.A.ANAND
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J.
W.A.No.973 of 2013
Dated this, the 17th day of July, 2013
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur,C.J.:
The appellant Management is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing consideration of the case of the writ petitioner under UCO Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995.
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 2 :
Management. Ext.R3(7) is the Pension Regulation of 1995 which indicates the terms and conditions under which the category of employees who would be eligible to claim pension benefit provided under Regulation 1995. It also applies to the family members of employees who died at a particular time while in service or after retirement as well. In other words, subject to terms and conditions indicated in the Regulation, the family members were also entitled for family pension under the Regulation of 1995, but on specific terms and conditions.
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 3 :
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 4 :
Bank brought to our notice the Original Pension Regulations of
1995 and the conditions so far as the time within which one
could opt for pension under 1995 Pension Regulations, i.e., at 3.7 of the regulations. According to him, Ext.R3(9) is only meant for employees referred to at the 'GIST' of Ext.R3(9) and the husband of the writ petitioner do not fall under any of the categories referred to at Ext.R3(9). If at all the family of the writ petitioner was entitled for any family pension it had to be under 1995 Regulations and not under Ext.R3(9). In order to understand how the case of the writ petitioner is to be included or excluded from the application of pension scheme, one has to read the terms and conditions at Ext.R3(7) and also Ext.R3(9). Clause 3.7 of Ext.R3(7) reads as under:-
3. Application.- These regulations shall apply to employees who, -
xx xx xx
7. were in the service of the Bank during any time on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 and had died while in service on or before the 31st
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 5 :
day of October, 1993 or 1986 and had died while in service on or before 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 reading of 3.7 of Regulation makes it clear that one has to exercise option in writing within 120 days from the notified date to become member of the fund. The notified date is 29.9.1995.
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 6 :
Apparently, the husband of the respondent/writ petitioner died on 3.10.1986. There are three conditions at clause 3.7 in order to have the benefit of the family pension. The employee must be in service during any time on or after 1.1.1986 and should have died while in service on or before 31.10.1993. This is one set of employees. An employee who is in service during any time on or after 1.1.1986 but retired on or before 31.10.1993 but died before the notified date; in which case the family members would be entitled for pension or family pension, as the case may be subject to terms and conditions at (a) and (b).
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 7 :
application came to be filed by the writ petitioner. The reason for non filing such representation is said to be ignorance of introduction of pension scheme in 1995. So far as this reason put forth by the writ petitioner, whether there is any justification, one has to see under what circumstances her claim of ignorance could be sustained.
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 8 :
of the employee. This document clearly show that writ petitioner Balmani was all along residing and looked after by her daughter Snehalatha. Ext.R3(6) is an option form given by the daughter of the writ petitioner dated 28.9.1994 opting for the pension scheme. These documents are relied upon in order to establish that, daughter of the writ petitioner, who joined the service of the appellant Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier, was very well aware of the pension scheme of 1995 and gave a declaration so far as her service was concerned; opting for the said pension scheme as early as on 28.9.1994. Therefore, the daughter of the writ petitioner was aware of the pension scheme which was introduced much prior to the introduction of the pension scheme on 29.9.1995. Therefore, she is presumed to have known even the time within which the said option had to be exercised by the family members of the Bank employees who retired and who were not alive in terms of 3.7 of the Regulations. Having kept quite in spite of such knowledge, whether they could have asked for benefit of pension scheme at Ext.R3(9); in the absence of exercising option within the period prescribed is the question
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 9 :
before us. Obviously, her entitlement had to crystallize by an option to be exercised by the family of the deceased employee within the stipulated time and refund of Provident Fund disbursed with interest also had to be made within a specific period. Neither did the petitioner comply with such specific condition nor did she approach the authorities within a reasonable period; her option being first made after 11 years.
“ Eligible family members of those employees who were in service prior to 29th September 1995 and could not opt for pension and retired and subsequently expired can also opt for family pension.
Eligible family members of those employees who were in service prior to 29th September 1995 and could not opt for pension and subsequently expired while in service can also opt for family pension”.
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 10 :
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 11 :
members of the deceased husband of the appellant.
W.A.No.973 of 2013 : 12 :
Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
If any amount is remitted in pursuance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant Bank shall refund the said amount with interest applicable, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice
Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.
jma/180713
( true copy )
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the daughter of a deceased bank employee, who applied for family pension 11 years after the 1995 scheme introduction, is barred by the time limit stipulated in Regulation 3.7.
Whether the 2010 circular extended the 1995 pension scheme benefits to employees who died prior to its introduction.
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the family pension claim under the 2010 modified scheme ignoring the 1995 scheme conditions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
UCO Bank represented by its General Manager
Chief Officer (Pension Cell) Personal Department, Head Office, UCO Bank
The Senior Manager UCO Bank, Kozhikode
P.V. Balamani Amma
Dr. Manjula Chellur
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
