Shiv Narain Mishra v. The G.M. UCO Bank Head Office

1. In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, Shiv Narain Mishra, two reliefs are claimed- one is for grant of pension and second is for payment of interest for the delay in release of the retiral benefits to the petitioner. I may note that the petitioner has expired during the pendency of the petition and is now represented by his legal heirs.

2. So far as the issue of pension is concerned an employee would be granted pension if the employee would have exercised such an option. The petitioner claims that the petitioner had exercised the option in terms of a form 2013:DHC:1663 which has been filed as Annexure P-5 at page 25 to the writ petition. The respondent no.1 bank has, however, categorically denied that the petitioner ever exercised the option for grant of pension and that this form as claimed by the petitioner was ever submitted by him.

3. A reference to the form, Annexure P-5 shows that there is no endorsement of the form having been received by the respondent-bank. The petitioner also has no proof that this form was ever submitted to the respondentbank. Accordingly, there is no reason for me to disbelieve the respondent that the petitioner did not opt for the pension scheme and therefore he was not granted pensionary benefits. I thus hold that the petitioner having failed to exercise the option for grant of pension, he was/is not entitled to the relief of pensionary benefits.

4. So far as the relief claimed of interest for the period of alleged delay in paying the retiral benefits, it may be noted that the petitioner had disputed his date of birth with the respondent-bank. In order to challenge his date of birth, the petitioner had filed W.P(C) 1776/1996. This writ petition was ultimately decided and dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 14.07.2008. Surely, if the petitioner himself was contesting his date of birth as recorded with the respondent-bank, and if the petitioner would have succeeded, the petitioner would have got a longer service and he would not be retired on the date on which he otherwise retired in 1996. In view of the prevailing uncertainty, the respondentbank was fully justified in paying retiral dues of the petitioner only after the decision of the writ petition No.1776/1996 on 14.07.2008, but in fact, and it is not disputed, that the payment of the retiral/terminal benefits was made to the petitioner in the year 2003 i.e even before the decision of this writ petition.

5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 03, 2013 as