WA/2687/2023 of T. Govindaraj Vs UCO BANK on 24 August 2026

JUDGMENT

(Krishnaswamy Govindarajan,J.) The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.29863 of 2022 is the appellant in the present Writ Appeal.

2. The appellant filed the Writ Petition seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent in No.2022-23/197 dated 19.10.2022 and to direct the respondents to pay pension and commutation amount with interest.

3. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that he was working as Chief Manager in the 4th respondent's Bank and rendered 40 years of service in the respondents Bank. Though he did not opt for pension as per instructions of their Association in the year 1993, in the year 2010 as per the settlement reached between the Banks and Unions, another pension option was given to those non-optees with a load of 2.8 times of basic pay as on November 2007. Taking advantage of the same, the writ petitioner opted to join the pension scheme vide his option dated 04.10.2010 and through the Option Form Annexure-I, he authorised the competent authority to recover the amount equal to 2.8 times of his revised pay for the month of November 2007 from his arrears payable to him on account of wage revision dated 27.04.2010. After such option, the writ petitioner was brought to the Pension Scheme with certain conditions. Thereafter, he retired on 30.06.2022 and the entire retirement benefits were settled except pension and commutation. Hence, the writ petitioner made a representation and the same was not considered. Despite the earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.24624 of 2022 dated 27.09.2022, the petitioner’s claim was rejected. Challenging the same, the petitoner filed the Writ Petition.

4. The respondents in the appeal, who were also the respondents in the Writ Petition, filed a detailed counter stating that though the writ petitioner submitted a relevant Form on 04.10.2010 and expressed his intent to opt for the pension scheme and authorized the respondents Bank to transfer the pension fund an amount equivalent to 2.8 times of his revised pay for the month of November 2007 i.e., Rs.88,200/- from and out of the settlement received on account of arrears of wage revision, however, at the time of exercising the option, the petitioner did not have sufficient funds in his account for transferring the Pension Contribution. From 04.10.2010 to 18.10.2010, the petitioner's account did not have sufficient funds for debiting the Pension Contribution as required under the Pension Scheme. The petitioner in fact, received a sum of Rs.1,14,790.14 towards the arrears of wage revision in terms of the Bipartite

Settlement/Joint Note on 09.07.2010 in the petitioner's Savings Bank Account. The said sum was immediately withdrawn by the petitioner on 10.07.2010, the very next day. Therefore the amount towards the contribution was never available in his account. As the petitioner did not pay the amount nor contributed towards the pension fund, he is not entitled for benefit under the scheme.

5. On the basis of the aforementioned submissions, the Writ Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to make the required financial contribution. Given that the petitioner was fully aware of the scheme, yet neglected to deposit the contribution amount, the Court held that he was not entitled to subsequently claim pension benefits under the new scheme. On that basis, the Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

6. We heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the respondents.

7. There is no dispute that the petitioner joined the new scheme on 04.10.2010 and submitted the Option Form Annexure-I authorizing the competent authority to recover an amount equivalent to 2.8 time of his revised pay for the month of November 2007 from the arrears payable to him on account of the wage revision dated 27.04.2010.

8. When there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner’s option dated 04.10.2010 and its subsequent acceptance by the respondents Bank, the Bank’s contentions that funds were insufficient in the petitioner’s Bank Account, and as such the money was not deposited in the pension scheme, are legally unacceptable, especially in the absence of any communication from the Bank to the writ petitioner that funds were unavailable or that the deduction had not been made and as such the petitioner was ineligible to claim benefits under the new pension scheme. The defence raised by the respondents Bank was taken only at the stage of Writ Petition.

9. In fact the option Form Annexure-I for the new scheme was hand over by the petitioner on 04.10.2010, however, on 19.10.2022, the respondents Bank has sent a letter to the writ petitioner stating that an amount equal to 2.8 times of revised pay for the month of November 2007 was not deposited by the writ petitioner. Even in the said letter, there is no mention with respect to the status of the petitioner’s account.

10. When the entire mistake is on the part of the respondents Bank in not informing the writ petitioner, especially when the option Form Annexure-I had been duly handed over to the respondents Bank authorizing the withdrawal, the Bank cannot now claim any right to reject the petitioner’s claim.

11. In view of the forgoing reasons, we are interfering with the order of the Writ Court.

12. Accordingly, the order made in WP No.29863 of 2022 dated 04.07.2023 is set aside. This Writ Appeal is allowed with a direction to the writ petitioner to pay the amount equivalent to 2.8 times of his revised pay for the month of November 2007 immediately within period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment, the respondents Bank is directed to include the writ petitioner in the new pension scheme as opted by him vide option letter dated 4.10.2010. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.) 02-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KSA-2

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. KSA-2 WA No. 2687 of 2023 02-09-2026