V.S. Sirpurkar, J. - (1.) A judgment by the Learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition and thereby declaring that the Petitioner was entitled to opt for and come under Pension Regulations is in challenge in this appeal. Petitioner/Respondent herein was a bank employee. Some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him while he was in service, resulting his dismissal. His departmental appeal was also dismissed. He then filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority. The writ petition was dismissed. He preferred an appeal, the Appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, we Petitioner filed a review petition before bank authorities in accordance with the service conditions. The Reviewing Committee did not dispose of that application. Therefore, he approached this Court again seeking direction upon the view committee to dispose of the application. The Court accepted his contention and in terms thereof the review committee looked into he matter and came to the conclusion that there was no direct evidence against him of causing loss to the bank and accordingly converted the order of dismissal into an order of compulsory retirement, of course, by way of punishment. The Petitioner secured his retrial benefits including contributory portion of the Provident Fund along with the interest thereupon. He was held to have been dismissed prematurely and compulsorily with effect from 11th September, 1987.
(2.) So far so good, there a scheme called United Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 came into existence. It was applicable to the employees retied between 1.1.1986 and the first day of November, 1993. Under the scheme there were in all eight categories of employees who have been held entitled to join the pension scheme. Regulation 3 provides for the applicability and the eligibility conditions for joining the pension scheme. In short it is a Regulation creating entitlement for pension.
(3.) The Petitioner's option form was also sent to him for exercising the option. He accordingly sent that form, he was also asked to undertake a medical examination by a letter dated 31st December 1994/2nd January, 1995 and the Petitioner was accordingly medically examined also. The report of this medical examination was also submitted and thus he had completed all the necessary formalities. However, to his dismay he received a letter dated 13.11.1995 whereby his request opting for pension scheme was rejected, relying on Regulation 33 of the United Bank of India (Employees") Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred called 'Pension Regulations, 1995' for short). Petitioner thereafter made representations and ultimately filed writ petition. His writ petition was initially dismissed but in an appeal he was given liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the validity of Regulation 33 of Bank Employees Pension Regulation 1995 in so far as it denied pension on compulsory retirement. This writ petition was allowed and now the bank has come up before us by way of the present appeal.;