L. Narasimha Reddy, J. - (1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the order, dated 01.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review W.P.M.P. No. 40318 of 2013 in W.P. No. 26924 of 1999. The facts, that gave raise to the filing of the writ appeal, are as under:
(2.) THE sole respondent was employed as Clerk in the appellants -Bank on 23.04.1970 and his services were confirmed in that post on 23.10.1972. In the year 1976, he became Officer of the Bank. He was paced under suspension on 13.02.1987 on certain allegations. Proceedings under the relevant provisions of I.P.C. were initiated against him by the C.B.I. The case is said to have ended in acquittal. A charge sheet, dated 18.02.1991 was served upon the respondent alleging certain' irregularities. In the departmental enquiry, a finding was recorded to the effect that the charges are proved, through report, dated 13.12.1994. Based on that, a show cause notice dated 24.03.1995 was issued to the respondent. Not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority passed an order, dated 09.11.1996 imposing the punishment of removal from service. The departmental appeal was rejected on 26.12.1997. Challenging the order of removal, the respondent filed W.P. No. 26924 of 1999. By the time the writ petition came up for hearing, the respondent attained the age of superannuation. He sought to place reliance upon the relevant Pension Rules, which enable even an employee, who is removed from service, to draw pension, subject to certain conditions. The writ petition was disposed of on 21.06.2013, directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent as to whether he is entitled for pension and other retirement benefits and to pass orders within six weeks. In compliance with the same, the appellants passed order, dated 08.10.2013 taking the view that the respondent is not qualified to be paid pension, since he does not fit into the relevant Clauses. To be precise, the appellants informed the respondent that either he should have completed 20 years of pensionable service and crossed 50 years of age, or 25 years of pensionable service irrespective of the age, or completed 10 years of pensionable service and attained the age of 60 years and since he does not fit into any of those Clauses, he is not entitled for pension.
(3.) IN view of the development that has taken place through communication, dated 08.10.2013, the respondent filed review petition. Learned single Judge heard the matter in detail and took the view that the respondent is qualified to be paid pension. Hence, this writ appeal.;