' AFTAB AHMED, MEMBER.---The case of appellant Muhammad Nisar Khan, a retired employee of Habib Bank Limited is that he has been retired from service under Voluntary Golden Hand Shake Scheme (V.G.H.S.) without giving him full retirement benefits. The appellant was relieved from his assignment by order dated 23-10-1997. Being dissatisfied with the retirement benefits, he filed departmental appeal to the President H.B.L. On 5-11-1997. The departmental appeal it appears remained unreplied and hence the present appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 9-4-1999 with an application for condonation of delay.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in August 1997 a scheme known as Voluntary Goden Hand Shake Scheme (VGHS) was introduced by the HBL and circulated to all the employees. The option was to be exercised by 10-9-1997. The appellant who was then posted as Regional Audit Officer at Peshawar also opted for the Scheme vide option form dated 4-9-1997. The option tendered by the appellant was accepted by the HBL and he was relieved from his duties vide impugned order dated 23-10-1997. The dues of the appellant were calculated under the Old Retirement Scheme (generally known as O.R.B.). Since the appellant expected his retirement under the New Retirement Scheme/Benefit (known as N.R.B.) the appellant submitted a representation to the Senior Vice- President HBL requesting, for consideration of his retirement under the new retirement scheme/benefit which according to him was more attractive and beneficial to him as under the NRB he was entitled to pension in addition to other monetary benefits. It appears that the Bank did not consider his request and he finally decided to approach the Tribunal alongwith an application for condonation of delay.
3. Arguing the case of the appellant Mr. Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, Advocate submitted that acceptance of VGHS was conditional subject to change of option and that refusal of the respondent Bank to allow change of option from ORB to NRB was not only illegal but harsh as well as the appellant had suffered heavy monetary loss besides the pensionary benefits to which he had become entitled in view of length of his service.
4. Defending the action of the respondent Bank Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate pleaded that the VGHS scheme announced in August 1997 clearly stipulated two separate kinds of benefits to the employees under the old scheme and under the new scheme. The appellant opted for the VGHS scheme vide option dated 4-9-1997 unconditionally and was allowed to retire as per option.
The benefits were calculated under the old retirement benefit scheme (ORB) as the appellant had never opted for the new retirement scheme though he was provided a number of chances to change it. Such chances were said to have been provided first in 1977, 2nd in 1981, third in 1987 and lastly in 1994 and as the appellant did not opt for the new retirement benefit (NRB) he had to remain in the old scheme and his request for change of the option after retirement in October, 1997 could not be acceded to.
5. Supplementing his arguments Mr. Bajwa submitted that in fact old retirement benefits was more attractive to the employees than the new retirement benefits inasmuch as under the ORB employees were entitled to gratuity and Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F.). The employees.
Contribution towards Provident Fund was equally matched by the employer's bank. Besides, the amount of Provident Fund was invested in approved Government securities and the income thus, earned was distributed annually amongst the Provident Fund/Account Holders. Under the new retirement benefits (NRB) the employees were entitled to Provident Fund self-contribution only and also to pension upon achieving the age of retirement. M . Bajwa submitted that the decision was however left entirely with the employees to decide as to which set of benefits they wanted to avail, Since the appellant despite providing chances to change the option, did not opt the new retirement benefits, he was, paid the dues in accordance with the old retirement benefits which was absolutely legal, fair and just.
6. Pleading further Mr. Bajwa submitted that the appeal of the appellant was time-barred besides being meritless. It was said that the appellant submitted his first departmental appeal on 27-11- 1997 which was received in the Bank (President's Secretariat) on 2-12-1997. Since the matter remained pending in the Bank and no reply was given to the appellant, the appellant was bound to approach the Tribunal within 30 days after the expiry of statutory waiting period of 90 days i,e, on or before 27-3-1998. The present appeal filed before the Tribunal on 9-4-1999 was thus, barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
7. We have carefully examined the arguments and perused the record. The VGHS scheme was announced by the Bank in August, 1997. 'The appellant exercised the option on 4-9-1997. The option available at page 19 of the comments shows that it was without any condition as allegedly the appellant in the representation dated 5-11-1997 to the Senior Vice-President (page 13 of the appeal). The bank accepted the option and relieved him of his assignment on payment of the dues vide impugned order of 23-10-1997. The appellant has failed to show any document that he had ever opted for the new retirement benefits (NRB) and as such could not be allowed benefits under the new retirement scheme (NRB) after having retired from the bank in October, 1997. The appeal has no merits besides being time-barred and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Parties be informed.