- (1.) The Court: Mr.Sanyal, learned advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner on earlier occasions and today. He had submitted the petitioner had two claims being that the bank was wrong in calculating his client's pension benefits on the basis of 17 years of service which should have been taken to be 33 years. His client's second claim urged was that on discovery of fitment given as on 6th October, 2003, applied from the date of resumption of duties, the petitioner was entitled to claim proper fitment effective on and from 8th March, 1998 being the date from which the Appellate Authority's order was made effective.
(2.) Mr.Majumdar, learned advocate on behalf of the bank opposed the claims of the petitioner by firstly relying on circular dated 19th February, 2002 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, inter alia, to the effect that where the incumbent had not got the benefit of full wages, the period of absence will not be considered as qualifying service of pension. His second point in opposition was that in any event the period of suspension could not count as qualifying service under the provision of Regulation 21.
(3.) Mr. Sanyal, in reply relied on a decision in the case of Mukul Chandra Bhattacharyya versus Union of India & Ors. delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court and reported in (2014)2 CLT 38 in which the said circular was considered in the context of Regulation 22 of the United Bank of India (Employees' Pension) Regulations, 1995.;