SITARAM AGGARWAL vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~4 (03.03.2026) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 25th April, 2026. + W.P.(C) 213/2020 SITARAM AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R. Vasudevan, Mr. N.C Gupta, Advocates with Petitioner in person. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr. Anant Gautam, Mr. Deepanjal Choudhary, Ms. Azal Aekram, Mr. Aman Gahlot, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral): [As per to Notification No. 64/G-4/Gen1.-I/DHC dated 27th February, 2026, matters listed on 3rd March, 2026 (on account of “Holi”), are to be taken up on 25th April, 2026.”] 1. The Petitioner, a former officer of Punjab National Bank [“PNB”], seeks a direction that he be treated as a pension optee under the Punjab National Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 [“1995 Regulations”]. The Petitioner states that he had opted for pension on 30 th September, 1994 when PNB first invited options under its proposed pension scheme, and that PNB did not act upon that option. PNB disputes the claim and contends that the Petitioner did not exercise a valid option under the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 213/2020 Page 1 of 25 By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:27.04.2026 20:41:47 1995 Regulations, that he was compulsorily retired on 31 st January, 1995 and was not covered under the later second-option dispensation, and that after settlement of provident fund and other terminal dues in January, 1996, the claim cannot be revived after a long lapse of time. 2. The dispute concerns the effect of the option dated 30 th September, 1994 in the context of the 1995 Regulations and PNB’s circular issued thereafter, the applicability of the pension scheme to an employee compulsorily retired prior to 29th Sept