IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to pension benefits under the PF and Pension Circular No. 8/2010, based on the exercise of options and the bank's obligations in transferring funds to the Pension Fund.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, inter alia, seeking the following prayers:

"1. Direct the Respondent Bank to treat the Petitioner as pension optee, sanction pension and thereafter disburse pension to her w.e.f. October 2015 onwards in terms of the bipartite settlements/ joint notes dated 27.04.2010 and circulars of the respondent Bank supra;

2. And grant such further relief as may be deemed just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had joined the services of the New Bank of India as a Clerk on 14.09.1976. Subsequently, in the year 1993, the New Bank of India was merged with the Punjab National Bank vide the notification of the Reserve Bank of India on 04.09.1993. Sometime in the year 1995/1996, an option was offered to the confirmed employees of the Bank for joining the Pension Scheme.

5. At the initial stage, the petitioner had not opted for the said Scheme. However, subsequently, on various dates in 2010, namely, 16.08.2010, 26.08.2010 and 21.09.2010, the options were yet again sought from the employees in respect of the Pension Scheme floated in the year 1995, vide Circular bearing No. PF and Pension Department Circular No. (s) 8/2010, 9/2010 and 11/2010, detailing the guidelines for submissions thereof.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.09.2010, the petitioner had submitted her option for pension in the prescribed option form and at that time, the petitioner was stated to have been posted at the GT Road, Panipat Branch of the respondent Bank.

7. It is also the case of the petitioner that in terms of the settlement/ joint note dated 27.04.2010, the petitioner had given the requisite undertaking to contribute 30% of the initial funding gap, assessed for extending another option for joining the pension scheme together with the Bank's contribution to PF with interest accrued thereon. For that, the petitioner as required, had also authorized the Bank/ trustees of the Contributory PF to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank in PF along with the entire interest accrued thereon to the credit of Pension Fund and simultaneously, the petitioner states to have also authorized the bank to transfer to the Pension Fund, the amount equal to 2.8 times of her revised pay for the month of November, 2007, representing her share towards 30% contribution.

8. The petitioner is stated to have retired on 30.09.2015, reaching the age of superannuation.

9. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite having given both the options, according to her, which was sought from her under the aforesaid circular, the Bank had not granted her any Pension as per the Pension Scheme of the year 1995, an option which was offered in the year 2010.

10. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 10.05.2018 and subsequently, the present writ petition was filed.

11. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in accordance with the Circular bearing No. 8/2010 dated 16.08.2010, namely, the PF and Pension Circular No. 8/2010 had given her option in accordance with the Clause A and sub Clause (a) and (b) to the Bank/ respondent.

12. According to her, once the aforesaid option was exercised involving sub-Clause (a) and (b) of Clause A of the aforesaid PF and Pension Circular, her role so far as an employee of the respondent is concerned, was over.

13. According to Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel, the transfer of the PF and salary from her account to the Pension Fund Account was the responsibility of the Bank. The Bank not having completed their end of the rule of the Sub-Clause (c) of the Clause A, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with the delay, non-exercise or non-completion of the transfer of funds according to Clause B of the aforesaid circular.

14. While the pet