Jan - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012In the case of Jai Singh B. Chauhan(supra), the Supreme Court was dealingwith the case of a serving employee whodid not opt for the pension scheme withinthe stipulated period of 120 days and hadthereafter made representation only on4.5.1998 with a request to be coveredunder the pension scheme and that too noton the requisite form. When the same wasrejected by the Bank, the employee filed awrit petition, which was dismissed andultimately the Apex Court also dismissedthe claim of the employee on the groundthat the publication of the scheme in theofficial gazette would be construed assufficient notice to the employee of theBank. The case of a serving employeeopting for pension scheme in the year1998, when the scheme had been issued in1995 which provided for giving of optionwithin 120 days, would be distinct fromthat of a widow of a deceased employee.The circular dated 16.11.1995, as hadbeen issued by the respondent-Bank, wasneither placed before the Apex Court norwas it applicable, as the claimant therewas a serving employee. By the circulardated 16.11.1995, the Bank itself requiredthe issuance of notice to each retiredemployee or family members of thedeceased employee, which was admittedlynot sent to the petitioner in this particularcase. Such requirement must have beenfound necessary by the respondent-Bankas a retired employee or family membersof the deceased employees could not behaving information of the schemepromulgated by the Bank. On thecontrary, as publicity of the scheme wasgiven in the bank offices, there was nosuch requirement of individual intimationto the serving employees, as they wouldhave, in any case, come to know of thescheme of the bank in the normal course.In such view of the matter, the ratio of thedecision in Jai Singh B. Chauhan's casewould not be applicable to the facts of thepresent case.In the case of S.K. Mastan Bee(supra), the Apex Court was dealing withthe case of grant of family pension to thewidow of a retired employee. In the saidcase also, the claim of the widow wasrejected by the employer on the ground ofdelay. In such facts, the Apex Courtdirected payment of the entire arrears ofpension within three months and allowedthe writ petition with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.While allowing the writ petition, the ApexCourt made the following observations:-"6. We notice that the appellant'shusband was working as a Gangman whodied while in service. It is on record thatthe appellant is an illiterate who at thattime did not know of her legal right andhad no access to any information as toher right to family pension and to enforceher such right. On the death of thehusband of the appellant, it wasobligatory for her husband's employee,viz., railways, in this case to havecomputed the family pension payable tothe appellant and offered the same to herwithout her having to make a claim orwithout driving her to a litigation. Thevery denial of her right to family pensionas held by the learned Single Judge aswell as the Division Bench is anerroneous decision on the part of therailways and in fact amounting to aviolation of the guarantee assured to theappellant under Article 21 of theConstitution. The factum of theappellant's lack of resource to approachby the legal forum timely is not disputedby the railways. Question then arises onfacts and circumstances of this case, theAppellate Bench was justified in