The stipulation of not personally informing retired employees about the pension scheme was in contravention of the scheme for the benefit and welfare of the retired employees, and the petitioner was entitled to the scheme despite the respondent's arguments.

( 1 )

( 2 ) THIS writ petition can be disposed of at this stage as a short question emerges for adjudication. The petitioner retired from the service of UCO Bank on 31st July, 1990. At that time there was no pension scheme in the Bank. However, a pension scheme was launched by the Bank for the welfare of the personnel who retired on or after 1. 1. 1985 and on or before 31. 10. 1993. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that his case is covered under the scheme. However, counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner could not avail the benefit of the scheme as the cut-off date by which the petitioner was to apply was latest by 30th September, 1994. It is further contended by counsel for the respondent that as per the own contention of the petitioner, the petitioner came to know about the scheme in 1997. However, he sent a letter to the respondent in 1997 and then kept quiet and only in 2001 he sent a legal notice. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the pensionary benefit under the scheme.

( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. The case as set up in the writ petition in para 6 by the petitioner is that the petitioner came to know through his office friend Mr. G. L. Yadav regarding new pension scheme and then he visited the Branch Office of the respondent, he was advised by respondent no. 5, i. e. Branch Manager, for the purpose of release of pension, to submit application and other required documents. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 5 forwarded all the necessary documents/forms pertaining to the pension of the petitioner to the concerned authorities on 23rd July, 1997. No reply to this paragraph has been given by the respondent in the counter affidavit. Therefore, it is admitted by the respondent that respondent no. 5 had forwarded the documents and other papers on 23rd July, 1997. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the application is without any merit. Coming to the next contention of learned counsel for the respondent that cut-off date was 30th September, 1994, respondent thereafter issued further notice on 17th November, 1995 granting 120 days, therefore, according to their own notices till January, 1996, the petitioner was entitled to apply in terms of their own cut-off date. When the pension scheme was adopted by the respondent in view of some settlement, it was to enure to the benefits of the personnel who have worked with the Bank concerned. The notice has been issued by Indian Banks Association. The petitioner was working as an armed guard. As a matter of fact, the persons who have worked from 1990 to 1993 ought to have been informed about the scheme which has been adopted pursuant to the settlement. However, I find from the public notice issued that there was a stipulation that those who have retired will not be personally informed. To my mind such a stipulation was totally in contravention of the scheme of the pension, which was for the benefit and welfare of the retired employees.

( 4 ) I do not find any force in the argument of counsel for the respondent that in spite of the fact that the respondent/bank was not obliged to send individual communication, a communication was sent to the petitioner informing him about the scheme. My attention was drawn to page 40 of the paper-book where the name of the petitioner appears in a list filed by the respondent. In the absence of any details as to on which address the same was sent, copy thereof and whether the same was sent by regd. AD cover or not, the argument of counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was informed, as a matter of fact, helps the case of the petitioner. Because in the scheme, there is no provision for sending notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has stated he has not received the notice sent by the Bank. Only on a vague list in the absence of other documents, no credence ca