JAI SINGH B. CHAUHAN versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 20-07-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

JAi SINGH B. CHAUHAN 
v. 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. 
JULY 20, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYA T AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1955: 
Pension scheme introduced by Bank-Published in Official Gazette-
Option exercised by employees belatedly-Rejected by Management-Held, 
employee having not exercised option within time, not eligible to be covered 
by Pension Scheme-It cannot be said that publication in Official Gazette 
cannot be treated as notice-Notice. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Respondent No. 1, the employer-Bank, in exercise of power under 
s.19(2)(f) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of 
Undertakings) Act, 1970, framed the Punjab National Bank (Employees) 
Pension Regulations, 1995 giving option to the employees to opt for Pension 
Scheme on or before a specified date. During the draft stage the time for option E 
was further extended. After finalization· of the scheme, it was published in 
the Official Gazette. Again as per the Gazette Notification, the option was to 
be exercised within 120 days from the dat~ of notification. Appellant-employee 
did not exercise the option withil;l the prescribed period, and made. a 
representation after two years with a request to be .covered by the Scheme. 
The Bank rejected his claim. The High .court ·dismissed his writ petition F · 
observing that the employee not only did not exercise the option within time, 
but also utilized the amounts deposited in the P·rovident Fund Account which 
was substituted by the Pension Scheme for those who ·exercised the option. 
In the appeal filed by the empfoyee it was contended that he could not 
exercise the op!ion within time as during the relevant period initially he was G 
on leave and later he w~s not allowed to join the duty; and even otherwise, in 
view of the letter dated 9.2.2002 issued by the Central Government, the Bank 
. was permitted to accept options exercised belatedly, 
143 
H 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200S) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: High Court was right in holding that the employees having not 
exercised the option within the prescribed period was not eligible to be covered 
by the Bank's Pension Scheme. It cannot be said that the publication or the 
,, 
Pension Scheme in the Official Gazette cannot be treated as notice to the 
B appellant. The letter of the Govemment oflndia dated 19th February, 2002 
applies to those cases where the employee could not exercise the option beeause 
he stood either dismissed or compulsorily retired as oa 29.9.1995, but later 
on got reinstated either due to the decision of any Court or Appellate Authority. 
Appellant's case does not fall in either of the two categories. 
C 
1744-F, 746-C, DI 
Mis. Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India and Ors .. 119941 5 SCC 
198, relied on. 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3845 of 2005. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.2004 of the Bombay High 
Court in Writ Petition No. 5136 of2000. 
Mahabir Singh, Ms. Madbusmita Bora, Gagandeep Shanna and O. 
Mahesh Babu with him for the Appellant. 
E 
Mukul Rohtagi, Dhruv Mehta, Mohit Chaudhary and Harshvardhan Jha 
F 
G 
with him for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA VAT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the 
Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition No. 5136 of2000 tiled by the 
appellant. High Court held that ·the appellant having not exercised option 
within the prescribed period was not eligible to be covered by the respondent 
no. I-Bank's Pension Scheme. 
The factual controversy lies within a very narrow compass and it is 
essentially follows: 
The appellant joined as clerk in the erstwhile New Bank of India Ltd. 
(in short the 'NBI') on 10th February, 1979. Later on, he joined the Punjab 
H National Bank, the Respondent No. I (hereinafter referred to as the 'Employer-
•, 
• 
----\ 
~( 
JAi SINGH B. CHAUHAN v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [PASA Y AT, J. ] 745 
Bank'). In exercise of power conferred by clause (t) of sub-section (2) of A 
Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of 
Undertakings) Act, 1970 (in short the 'Act'), the Board of Directors of 
Respondent No. I-Bank framed Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension 
Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations'). Originally, 
option was given to the employees to opt for the Pension Scheme, which was B 
called for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.