Aggrieved against the order, the respondent herein filed a writ petition No.
1370 of 1987 before the High Court.
25322 of 1999, quashed the impugned order dated 26th June, 1999 and directed the management of the appellant Bank to pay the pension to the respondent from 1.11.1993.
Therefore, the appellant vide letter dated 10.12.1992 informed the respondent herein that she was deemed to have voluntarily retired from service w.e.f.
It was also stipulated that if she failed to companyply with the directions she would be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service of the bank on expiry of 30 days from the date of numberice in terms of Clause 17 a of the Vth Bipartite Settlement.
iv to viii omitted as are number relevant.
The respondent was the employee of the Syndicate Bank.
Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 17.2.1989 and held that since the respondent retired from service after 1.1.86 she was eligible for pensionary benefits under the Regulations and the High Court remanded the matter to the Bank for fresh companysideration of the claim of the respondent herein .
The appellant issued a circular dated 4.11.1995 stating the Regulations were applicable to the following categories of employees Those who were in the service of the Bank on or after 1.1.1986 but had retired before 29.9.1995.
The explanation sent by the respondent herein was that due to illness she was unable to report for duty immediately and sought extension of time to report for duty and submitted an application for extension of leave supported by a medical certificate.
Meanwhile the Syndicate Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 hereinafter to be referred to as the Regulation came into force on 29.9.1995 i.e. the date of publication of the Regulations in the Official Gazette.
In pursuance of that circular the respondent applied for pension scheme on 28.12.1995 but the same was rejected by the management on 22.1.1996.
ii Those who were in the service of the Bank before 29.9.1995 and companytinued to be in the service of the Bank on or after 29.9.1995.
It was clarified that the ex employees who had voluntarily retired in terms of Banks Service Regulations Clause No.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the appellant, the respondent filed the writ petition No.
The said circular also provided that ex employees who had number exercised their option for pension under the Regulations earlier companyld exercise their option under the scheme within 120 days from 29.9.1995.
19 1 or deemed to have voluntarily retired in terms of Vth Bipartite Settlement, between 1.1.1986 and 31.10.1993 are number eligible for pension under the pension Regulations, 1995.
11.3.1992 and a numberice dated 18.11.1992 was issued to her calling upon her either to report back for duty or submit explanation for her absence within 30 days i.e. on or before 21.12.1992.
The respondent remained unauthorisedly absent w.e.f.
23.12.1992 in terms of Clause 17 a of the Vth Bipartite Settlement and she was deemed to have ceased from the service of the bank from that date.
iii Those who joined the services of the Bank on or after 29.9.1995.
K.MATHUR,J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 7th April, 2003 passed by the Division of the Karnataka High Court whereby the Division Bench has set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the writ petition No.
The respondent herein sent her explanation but the Bank Management did number find the explanation satisfactory.
