Kirti Sharma v. Punjab National Bank and Anr.

1. This writ petition is filed by Mrs. Kirti Sharma seeking directions against the respondent No.1/bank/employer for granting to her the due pensionary benefits w.e.f 1.10.2010.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent No.1 and was working as Special Assistant with the respondent No.1. Her ordinary date of superannuation was 30.9.2010. The respondent No.1/bank introduced the second pension option for an existing 2013:DHC:2011 WP(C) No.3584 /2012 2 of 5 pension scheme and the last date for exercising the option was 25.10.2010. Petitioner admittedly exercised this option within time on 26.8.2010.

3. Since the petitioner exercised the option within time, the Manager of the bank directed retaining back of the amount payable to the petitioner towards provident fund, gratuity etc and which becomes clear from the letter of the bank dated 18.9.2010, which reads as under:- “ Ref: Date: 18.09.2010 To The Chief Manager, PF & Pension Fund Deptt. HO Rajender Bhawan Rajender Place New Delhi. Reg: Another pension option for existing employee We are enclosing herewith pension option on behalf of captioned employee and forwarding two copies of original pension option letter to circle office out of four copies duly signed by her/him & counter sign by me. One copy will be kept in her/his personal file and another copy will be handed over to the employee as token of having received the same also received opt. and 2.[8] times amount kept in sundry A/c. List of employees PF NO. 1. Smt. Kirti Sharma 25184

2. Sh. Hari Om Garg 71466

3. Sh. B.D. Agrawal 32816

4. Smt. Sashi Khanna 26617

5. Smt. Namatter Kaur 39076

6. Sh. Shiv Dayal Arya 73520 Sr. Manager” WP(C) No.3584 /2012 3 of 5

4. Most surprisingly however the respondent No.1 instead of paying pension to the petitioner, credited the amount of gratuity and provident fund in petitioner’s saving bank account on 1.10.2010. There was no reason to credit the amount of provident fund of Rs.18,39,138.48/because the petitioner was in fact claiming pension in terms of the option letter dated 26.8.2010. Petitioner thereafter at no point of time ever withdrew this amount of provident fund credited to her account, and in fact she put the provident fund amount in a fixed deposit with the respondent No.1-bank itself on 5.1.2011. In fact, the FDR is created in favour of respondent No.1 because the petitioner maintained her savings bank account with the respondent No.1/employer.

5. On behalf of respondent No.1, all the aforesaid facts could not be disputed with respect to date of superannuation of the petitioner, the petitioner having within time exercised the option, in spite of above the respondent No.1 having credited the provident fund amount in petitioner’s saving bank account, and finally the petitioner having thereafter not withdrawn the amount but in fact having put the said amount of provident fund in a fixed deposit on 5.1.2011.

6. I fail to understand that how the respondent No.1 can take WP(C) No.3584 /2012 4 of 5 advantage of its own ill informed action of crediting the provident fund amount in the petitioner’s account because admittedly the petitioner had already exercised the option of pension and therefore there was no need to credit the provident fund amount on 1.10.2010. Mistake of the respondent No.1/bank cannot lead to prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner did not ask for crediting of the amount in her account.

7. Counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that the respondent No.1 can not only take back the original principal amount of provident fund, namely 9,18,569.24/- as credited on 1.10.2010, but the respondent No.1 can even take interest which has accrued on the said amount which was put in a fixed deposit on 5.1.2011 with the Palwal Branch of the respondent No.1. Counsel for the petitioner however rightly argues that the petitioner should be given the arrears of pension alongwith interest on account of delay caused by the respondent No.1 in paying the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner will be treated as a pension optee in terms of her letter dated 26.8.2010. Respondent No.1 can appropriate the amount of Rs.9,18,569.24 alongwith interest accrued thereon from 5.1.2011 and the petitioner will be paid her WP(C) No.3584 /2012 5 of 5 pensionary benefits payable w.e.f 1.10.2010 alongwith interest @ 12% per annum simple till this amount is credited in the savings bank account of the petitioner. Petitioner will be entitled to further pension every month w.e.f today in accordance with the rules. Petitioner is also granted costs of Rs.10,000/-. VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 22, 2013 Ne