Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition No. 5136 of 2000 filed by the appellant. High Court held that the appellant having not exercised option within the prescribed period was not eligible to be covered by the respondent No.1 Bank’s Pension Scheme.

3. The factual controversy lies within a very narrow compass and it is essentially as follows:

The appellant joined as clerk in the erstwhile New Bank of India Ltd. (in short the ‘NBI’) on 10th February, 1979. Later on, he joined the Punjab National Bank, the Respondent No. 1 (hereina­fter referred to as the ‘Employer-Bank’). In exercise of power conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (in short the ‘Act’), the Board of Directors of Respondent No.1-Bank framed Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regula­tions, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’). Origi­nally, option was given to the employees to opt for the Pension Scheme, which was called for vide Circular dated 27.6.1994. As per the said Circular, eligib