Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition No. 5136 of 2000 filed 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.1 Bank’s Pension Scheme.

3. The factual controversy lies within a very narrow compass and it is essentially as 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 National Bank, the Respondent No. 1 (hereina­fter referred to as the ‘Employer-Bank’). In exercise of power conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (in short the ‘Act’), the Board of Directors of Respondent No.1-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 called for vide Circular dated 27.6.1994. As per the said Circular, eligible employees were required to exer­cise the option on or before 13.9.1994. Subsequently, it was extended up to 30.11.1994. This was at the Draft Scheme stage. After the Pension Scheme was finalized it was published in the Official Gazette dated 29.9.1995. Undisputedly, the appellant had not exercised the option within the time indicated at the Draft Scheme stage. As per the Gazette Notification, the option was to be exercised within 120 days from the date of Gazette Notifica­tion. Therefore, the last date was 27.1.1996. The appellant undisputedly had not exercised the option within the time stipu­lated in the scheme. Appellant made representation on 4.5.1998 with a request to be covered by the scheme. That representation was not in the requisite form. The respondents rejected the claim of appellant that he is to be governed by the Pension Scheme. The said decision dated 22.7.2000 of the respondent No. 1-Bank was challenged by filing the writ petition. The High Court found that not only the option was not exercised within time, but also the appellant was utilizing the amounts deposited in the Provident Fund Account. It was noted that the Provident Fund was substitut­ed by the Pension Scheme for those who exercise the option.

4. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel submitted that the appel­lant was not aware of the Circular issued calling for options or the Gazette Notification. As a matter of fact the respondent No.1-Bank and its functionaries were exhibiting hostile attitude to the appellant. Though he wanted to join duty after availing leave from 10.2.1994 to 16.8.1995, he was not permitted to join between 17.8.1995 to 22.10.1996 and he had to ultimately move to Guwahati High Court for relief. Because of that and not on ac­count of any laches he failed to exercise option within the stipulated periods. Reliance was placed to certain portions of Draft Pension Scheme as contained in Circular dated 27.6.1994. According to learned counsel, the circular clearly stated that employees who were not attending office for any reason such as suspension, long leave, unauthorised absence etc. were to be provided with the letter requiring exercise of option, at the last known address for their doing the needful. It was submitted that in the absence of any such intimation to the appellant the respondent No.1-Bank could not have refused to accept the option exercised. It was further submitted that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division by its letter dated 9.2.2002 had permitted the employer Banks to accept options exercised belatedly.

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Regulations clearly stipulated the procedure to be adopted for exercise of option. The appellant had not exercised