The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to claim interest on the employee's share of provident fund and belated pensionary benefits under the Allahabad Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.

JUDGMENT

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner was an employee of the erstwhile Allahabad Bank, which has since merged with the Indian Bank. He retired from service with effect from May 31, 2001. The petitioner claim that in spite of the fact that he submitted his option for pension while he was in service, the respondent/bank did not release the pensionary benefits for which the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No.3071(W) of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated January 25, 2005 directing the respondent bank to release necessary payment towards the monthly pension with family pension facilities with effect from June 1, 2001 with commutation facility within February 28, 2005. The pension was released in favour of the petitioner only on March 1, 2005.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was deprived from enjoying the pensionary benefits for the period from June 1, 2001 till February 28, 2005 and for such belated payment he is entitled to interest on the said amount. The further grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent/ bank deducted the entire amount of interest amounting to Rs.1,85,777/- on the balance of contributory provident fund by ignoring the fact that the petitioner is entitled to interest on his own contribution to provident fund, which is 50% of the aforesaid amount. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the commuted value of pension was released only on March 1, 2005, i.e. after about 45 months from the date when the petitioner retired from service for which he is also entitled to interest on account of such belated payment.

3. Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned advocate for the bank, seriously disputed the claim of the petitioner on account of interest on the employee's share of the provident fund. He placed reliance upon sub-regulation 9 of regulation 3 of the Allahabad Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 ('1995 regulations' for brevity) and submits that in order to come over to the pension scheme from the contributory provident fund scheme, the optee shall have to refund the amount of bank's contribution to the provident fund including interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest on such amount.

He, thus, submits that the bank is entitled to claim simple interest at the rate of 6% on the amount of bank's contribution to the provident fund including interest accrued thereon. He places on record a calculation made by the bank with regard to the petitioner's entitlement on such account. Such calculation, a copy of which has been supplied to the petitioner, is taken on record.

4. Mr. Rai further submits that immediately after the bank was directed by this Hon'ble Court to release the pensionary benefits, the bank complied with such order and made payments in terms of the order passed by this Court on an earlier writ petition and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any interest as claimed by him. He further submits that a co- ordinate Bench while disposing of the earlier writ petition did not pass any order directing the bank to pay interest on such amounts.

5. Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, disputes the calculation made by the bank.

6. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and considered the materials on record.

7. Petitioner exercised option to become a member of the Pension Fund during the tenure of his service. The petitioner was allowed to retire on May 31, 2001 in terms of the scheme of voluntary retirement floated by the bank. Since the bank did not act on the option of the petitioner to come over to the pension scheme, the petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition being WP No. 3071 (W) of 2003. A co-ordinate Bench of this court by an order dated January 25, 2005 after holding that the petitioner is a member of the pension fund in terms of the option filed with the bank directed the respondent/bank to