RAMA SHANKAR SHUKLAversusALLAHABAD BANK THRU. CHAIRMAN AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                     SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 235 of 2015

Rama Shankar Shukla
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

Allahabad Bank Thru. Chairman And 2 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Ganesh Datt Mishra, Ashok Kumar
                                  Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : , P.N.Tripathi

Court No. - 5
                    HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
                    HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgement and
order dated 23.1.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.3253 of
2015, operative portion of which reads as under:-

     "The facts of said case and the ratio laid down therein is not
     applicable to the facts of the present case as the petitioner had
     never opted for pension, had accepted the post retiral dues under
     the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, further, the petitioner
     being a Senior Manager, superannuated in 2002, the pension
     scheme was launched in 1995, of which the petitioner was fully
     aware but did not choose to exercise option in favour of the
     pension scheme, it would not be open to the petitioner to contend,
     that the petitioner be included in the pension scheme at this
     belated stage that too after retirement. The Court in exercise of
     its inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
     cannot enhance the cut off date for option in respect of an
     individual, which would be contrary to the scheme.

     In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality with the
     impugned."

3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent-Bank. Relevant
                                                           SPLA No. 235 of 2015
                                2


paragraph no. 24 of the aforesaid counter affidavit, reads as under:-

     "That pursuant to Bipartite Settlement/Joint Note dated
     27.4.2010, the Respondent Bank issued Instruction Circular
     No.11143/PA/2010-11/27 dated 15.09.2010 inviting options from
     the eligible employees /ex-employees to opt for pension in lieu of
     CPF with closing date of option on 18.11.2010. This time the
     Appellant herein pursuant to above mentioned Circular dated
     15.09.2010 opted for pension in lieu of CPF vide his option and
     refunded the requisite amount as per Bi-partite settlement dated
     27.04.2010 including Bank's contribution to CPF received by him
     at the time of retirement and he is being paid pension under
     ABEPR-95 w.e.f. 27.11.2009 as per the terms of the Bipartite
     Settlement/Joint Note dated 27.04.2010. It is pertinent to mention
     here that although the demand of the workmen unions/officers
     associations was that in case of the retired employees pension
     should be paid w.e.f. their respective date of retirement, but it
     was ultimately agreed between the parties of the Settlement/Joint
     Note that in case of the retired employees pension would be
     payable only w.e.f. 27.11.2009. At present the monthly pension
     being paid to the Appellant is Rs.21,941-34 as per his
     entitlement."

4. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner itself become infructuous. Hence the present special appeal has
also become infructuous.

5. Reply to paragraph no.24 of the counter affidavit has been made in
paragraph no.8 of the rejoinder affidavit in which the aforesaid facts were
duly admitted with the rider that the claim of pension from 01.08.2002 to
26.11.2009 is still pending consideration.

6. In response to the aforesaid, the counsel for the Allahabad Bank placed
before this Court Inter Office Memo dated 11.02.2011 according to the same
the pension for the aforesaid period was also paid to the petitioner. The
aforesaid pleading advised is also taken on record.

7. After going through the same, a prayer has been made by the counsel for
                                                                                             SPLA No. 235 of 2015
                                                                   3


                                    the appellant that the present special appeal has become infructuous for all
                                    practical purposes and the same be dismissed as having become infructuous.

                                    8. In view of the above, the present special appeal is dismissed as having
                                    become infructuous.



                                                                         (Vivek Saran,J.) (Prakash Padia,J.)
                                    September 14, 2026
                                    Gaurav Kuls




Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV KULSHRESTHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad