Jan - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All] Smt. Geeta Varshney V. Allabahad Bank Thru' M.D. H.O. Calcutta and others 95employees concerned or by his widow inthe event of death of the employees; thatamongst other Regulation 3(7) of thePension Regulations is relevant for thepurposes of the present controversy and thepetitioner's case is covered as it providedthat it shall apply to all employees whowere in the service of the bank on or beforethe 31st day of October, 1993. Subparagraph (a) of Regulation 3(7) providedfor exercising an option in writing withinone hundred and twenty days from thenotified date to become a member of theFund and sub paragraph (b) thereofprovided for refund within sixty days onthe expiry of the said period of onehundred and twenty days the entire amountof the Bank's contribution to the ProvidentFund and interest accrued thereon togetherwith a further simple interest at the rate ofsix per cent per annum from the date ofsettlement of the Provident Fund accounttill the date of refund of the aforesaidamount to the Bank.7. The contention of the respondentsas made in sub paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 ofparagraph 8 of the counter affidavit arequoted below:-"4. That thus option has to beexercised within 120 days from the notifieddate i.e. 29.09.1995 to become a memberof the fund viz. 27.01.1996 and furtherrefund of the entire amount of the Bank'scontribution to the Provident Fund was tobe made within sixty days of the expiry ofthe said period of one hundred twenty dayswith interest accrued thereon together witha further simple interest at the rate of sixper cent per annum from the date ofsettlement of the Provident Fund accounttill the date of refund of the aforesaidamount to the Bank.5. That the said mandatory conditionof the Regulation 3(7) was not compliedwith by the petitioner, inasmuch as neitherthe option was made before 27.1.1996 northe entire amount of the Bank'scontribution to the Provident Fund wasrefunded by her.6. That it is also relevant to mentionhere that "Allahabad Bank (Employees)Pension Regulations 1995" was framed inthe exercise of the power conferred byclause (f) of sub section (2) of Section 19 ofthe Banking Companies Act No.5 of 1970.It has thus statutory force and its effectscould not be diluted nor amendment couldbe made to it for bringing those personswho have not complied with the mandatoryprovisions given therein and not giventheir option within the time provided interms of Regulations.7. That the aforesaid "AllahabadBank (Employees) Pension Regulations,1995" was duly circularized by therespondent bank vide its instructioncircular no.4318 dated 16.11.1995amongst all branches and offices; thepetitioner at the relevant point of time wasposted at Maharajganj branch, Aligarh ofthe respondent bank and despite havingfull knowledge of the said circular thepetitioner did not submit her option beingthe widow of late Sharad ChandraVarshney for the family pension within thetime provided in terms of Regulation i.e.27.1.1996."8. The respondents further contendedthat from the aforesaid propositions, it isvery much clear that the petitioner is notentitled for family pension underRegulation 1995 because she had notcomplied with the mandatory provisions ofthe said Regulations; that she submitted