15 07.02.2025 KAUSHIK WPA 15694 of 2012 Anil Kumar Ray Vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal Ms. Poulomi Chakraborty … For the Petitioner. Mr. Soumya Majumdar Mr. P. K. Roy … For the respondent/Bank 1. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents to release the pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner by acting on the basis of the option exercised by the petitioner for joining the pension scheme under the Allahabad Bank (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Regulation”). 2. It is the petitioner’s case that the petitioner had been an employee of Allahabad Bank and had joined Allahabad Bank on January 11, 1984 as an ‘Armed Guard’. After successfully serving the bank for a period of more than 22 years, the petitioner was superannuated on June 30, 2006. Since, the petitioner had claimed that he had opted for pension under the said regulation, this Court had called for the records of this case. 3. Mr. Majumdar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Allahabad Bank which has since been merged with the Indian Bank has placed before this Court the available records of this case. From the available records, it would transpire that the pension papers of the petitioner were duly processed by treating the petitioner as a pension optee under the said regulation as originally circulated. Unfortunately, since all records are not available including the petitioner’s original option form, the respondents did not issue the Pension Payment Order (PPO) in favour of the petitioner. Copies of the records as placed before this Court by Mr. Majumdar are retained with the file. 4. Mr. Sanyal, learned advocate appearing in support of the aforesaid petition would, however, submit by drawing attention of this Court to a circular issued by the Allahabad Bank on September 15, 2010 that the employees of the bank including the erstwhile employees of Allahabad Bank were given a further opportunity to exercise another option for opting for pension. By drawing attention of this Court to the clause 4 of the Office Circular dated September 15, 2010 under the heading ‘Optional Guideline Clause 4.3’, he would submit that option form was meant for use of employees, who had retired on or after September 29, 1995 but before April 27, 2010. According to him, since the petitioner had retired 2 within the aforesaid cut of date, the petitioner was otherwise eligible for pension especially having regard to the fact that the option form exercised by the petitioner in terms of the above circular on September 6, 2010 is an undisputed document, which is available with the record of the respondent. He would submit that the said option form had been duly counter-signed by the Senior Manager of the Allahabad Bank. On the issue of the option being exercised prior to issuance of the circular i.e. on September 15, 2010, he would submit that since the officials of the bank were aware with regard to the decision of the Allahabad Bank to permit the ex-employees to exercise the option, the option forms were circulated and having regard thereto, there is no irregularity in exercise of the aforesaid option. He would submit that above option read with circular creates a legal right in favour of the petitioner to be entitled to pension. 5. Mr. Majumdar, learned senior advocate representing the respondent bank has not denied the aforesaid option being exercised by the petitioner as appearing at page 18 of the writ petition. He candidly submits that though the pension papers of the petitioner were processed however, since the original option exercised by the petitioner in terms of the said regulation could not be traced, PPO had not been issued. 3 6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Noting that the petitioner was an employee of the Allahabad Bank who had been superannuated on June 30, 2006 and also noting that the respondents had already processed the petitioner’s pension papers and it is also an admitted position that the circular letter dated September 15, 2010 was issued and a further option was given to the ex-employees of the bank to opt for pension. The petitioner was eligible in terms thereof and having exercised the option as appearing at page 18 of the writ petition, though such exercise of option was prior to publication of aforesaid circular letter, I am of the view that since the above circular was introduced to implement the terms of settlement /Joint note dated April 27, 2010, as advised by the Indian banks’ association and approved by the Board of Directors of the bank in its meeting held on August 28, 2010, providing for a further opportunity to the employees/officers to become members of the pension fund under the said regulation and noting that the same had the sanction of the Central Government, and that the option exercise by the petitioner though prior to September 15, 2010 being duly counter-signed by the Manager of Allahabad Bank, the case made out by the petitioner that since a decision to permit exercise of option by the ex-employees 4 had been taken, the option form was circulated, appears to be a plausible explanation. Further non-availability of the records of this case should not be a ground to deny the petitioner the opportunity to avail pensionary benefit especially since the respondents had processed the petitioner’s pension papers in tune with their pension regulation. 7. Having regard thereto, I direct the respondents to finally process the petitioner’s pension papers and compute the amount that is refundable by the petitioner for the petitioner to be entitled to the aforesaid pension. The petitioner shall be obliged to make payment of the amount so determined by the respondents along with simple interest calculated at the rate 6% per annum from the date when the same was disbursed in favour of the petitioner till such time the same is returned back. The respondents are also directed to complete the process of issuing PPO including completion of all formalities for disbursal of pension in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from date. Needless to note that the respondent shall compute the arrears and the arrears shall carry interest @6% p.a. 8. With the above directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if 5 applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) 6