Writ petition seeks family pension and quashing of rejection order. Court found employee opted out of pension on last date, justifying rejection. Myru
Directed the Bank to consider the case for switching to the pension scheme if the petitioner deposits the required amount within two months.
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 ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21006 of 2013
Jema Rout …. Petitioner None -versus…. Chief Manager, Pension Provident Opposite Parties Fund and Gratuity Deptt., State None Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Jaipur & another
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
30.10.2023
// 2 //
in the writ application that the late husband of the petitioner after retirement on 31.03.2008 was receiving pension, and in this regard the Opposite Party No.1 has issued a statement of provident fund account on 31.03.2000 in favour of the late husband of the petitioner. The writ petition further reveals that the husband of the petitioner died on 26.12.2010 leaving behind the present petitioner, who is the wife and two sons as legal heirs. It has also been stated that the petitioner being a legal heir of the husband, is entitled to a part of the family pension under the Bank Employees Pension Regulation Rules, 1995. However, she has not yet received the family pension from the Opposite PartyBank, as a result of which the whole family is suffering a lot. It has also been stated in the writ petition that during the life time late husband of the petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.2 for grant of pensionary benefit, however no final decision was taken on such application. The writ petition further reveals that earlier the petitioner had filed a writ application bearing W.P.(C) No. 24041 of 2011 with a prayer for direction to the Opposite Parties to grant family pension. The aforesaid writ application was disposed on 12.09.2011 with a direction to Opposite Patty No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose the same within 45 days of receipt of certified copy of the order. It has also been alleged that despite the order dated 12.09.2011 being duly communicated to Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 has passed an order on 08.12.2011 under annexure 3 to the writ application rejecting the claim of the petitioner for granting of family pension. Furthermore it averred in the writ petition that the order under Annexure 3 dated 08.12.2011 is in complete violation of the Regulation, 1995 of the bank and is neither legal nor justified in the eye of law.
// 3 //
well as Opposite Party had appeared before this Court. However considering the seriousness of the issue, this Court examined the record and on perusal of the order dated 08.12.2011 under Annexure-3 this Court found that the Branch Manager of the opposite Party-Bank considered the case of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12.09.2011. The said order does not reveal whether they have admitted the fact that late husband of the petitioner was working as a Arm Guard for period of 24 years. However, by referring to contract and settlement agreement dated 24.02.2010, the Branch Manager has informed that the retired employees of the bank are required to get pension and final payment of Contributory Provident Fund and gratuity and engagement leave salary as admissible to the employee at the time of retirement. Since the late husband of the petitioner opted for taking final Contributory Provident Fund and gratuity from the very beginning and later on an option was provided to the petitioner to opt for the pension facility provided to late husband of the petitioner on deposit of an amount of Rs.3,49,879/- for the settlement of pensionary benefits of the late husband of the petitioner vide letter dated 22.10.2010. The last date to exercise such option and to deposit the aforesaid amount in order to take the benefit of pension was 13.12.2010. However on the very same day the husband of the petitioner informed the branch vide letter dated 13.12.2010 that due to some physical problem, he was not willing to take pension and ultimately has denied the pension option on 13.12.2010. Accordingly the Branch Manager of Opposite Party-Bank rejected the prayer of the petitioner for family pension.
// 4 //
dispose of the writ application by directing the Opposite Party-Bank to consider the case of the petitioner to switch over to the pension scheme as per the regulations of the bank. As per bipartite settlement, in the event the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount as informed in letter under Annexure-3, the Bank is further directed to carry out the pension option, the authority shall consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension within a period of two months from the date of communication of copy of this order by the petitioner. 5. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High COurt of Orissa Date: 07-Nov-2023 10:31:12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to family pension despite the employee's denial of pension option.
Whether the bank must reinvestigate the claim under the bipartite settlement agreement.
Jema Rout
Chief Manager, Pension Provident Fund and Gratuity Deptt., State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
A.K. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
