Prior pension options are preserved under the 1995 Regulations despite subsequent compulsory retirement and delay.

The Petitioner joined Punjab National Bank (PNB) in 1983 and was compulsorily retired on January 31, 1995, following a departmental enquiry

Under PNB Circular No. 1431 (1994), which introduced a proposed pension scheme, the Petitioner submitted a pension option form on September 30, 1994, authorizing the transfer of PNB's Provident Fund (PF) contribution to the Pension Fund

Subsequently, the PNB (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 were notified. In November 1995, PNB issued a circular stating that employees who opted under the 1994 circular were deemed to have opted under the 1995 Regulations and need not apply afresh

In January 1996, PNB unilaterally settled the Petitioner’s terminal dues by paying out the PF contribution rather than transitioning him to pension

In 2018, the Petitioner requested pension benefits, which PNB rejected, claiming he was a "PF optee" and that compulsorily retired employees prior to September 1995 were ineligible

1. Whether the Petitioner’s 1994 option was preserved under the 1995 Regulations and the November 1995 Circular

2. Whether the Petitioner's compulsory retirement prior to the notification of the 1995 Regulations excluded him from the pension scheme

3. Whether the acceptance of PF dues in 1996 and the subsequent 24-year delay barred the Petitioner from claiming pensionary benefits

The Court applied the Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, specifically Regulation 3 regarding options for pension

It relied on the principle from Mohindher Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, which dictates that an administrative order must be judged by the reasons stated within it and cannot be improved by subsequent affidavits

Regarding delay in pension matters, it applied Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which classifies the denial of pension as a "continuing wrong," allowing for relief despite delay, while restricting arrears

It distinguished Jai Singh B. Chauhan v. PNB and Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, noting that while Gazette notification is constructive notice and delay is a factor, they do not defeat a claim where a valid option was already on record and unconsidered

The Court found that PNB’s November 1995 Circular expressly "deemed" options exercised under the 1994 Circular as valid under the 1995 Regulations, exempting such employees from fresh filings

Since PNB’s 2019 rejection admitted the 1994 option existed but was "not considered," the Bank could not now claim the Petitioner was a "non-optee"

The Court rejected PNB’s argument that compulsory retirement pre-September 1995 was a disqualifier, noting the 1995 Regulations covered those retired after November 1993 without such exclusion

Regarding the 1996 PF settlement, the Court held it was a unilateral computation by the Bank rather than a "conscious election" by the Petitioner to waive pension

While the 24-year delay was substantial, it did not extinguish the right to pension (a continuing wrong), but necessitated a restriction on monetary arrears to the date the Petitioner first formally revived his claim in 2018

It held that the Petitioner must be treated as a pension optee because his 1994 option was validly preserved by the November 1995 Circular

PNB was ordered to compute the Petitioner's pension and arrears from September 17, 2018, onwards; PNB is entitled to adjust/recover the Bank's 1996 PF contribution plus 6% simple interest from the arrears payable to the Petitioner; No arrears were granted for the period 1996–2018 due to laches; PNB must complete this exercise within eight weeks