Challa Kodanda Ram, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21173 of 2008, dated 30-07-2013, directing the appellant bank to extend the benefit of pension to the writ petitioner-respondent under the State Bank of Mysore Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995.

2. The admitted facts are that the writ petitioner is the wife of late P.Munaswamy, who had worked in the appellant bank from 01-05-1958 to 17-03-1991 and died while in service on 17-03-1991. On 30-06-1992, the appellant bank settled his provident fund and other benefits. Thereafter, the pension scheme came to be notified and came into effect from 01-11-1993 with retrospective effect from 1986. It is not in dispute that in normal circumstances, the benefit of pension rules can be availed by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner came to know of the pension scheme and approached the appellant bank by letter dated 29-11-1999 seeking extension of pension scheme. In that regard, the President of the State Bank of Mysore Pensioner’s Association also made a representation on 26-09-2000. As no response was forthcoming from the appellant-bank, a legal notice dated 11-11-2006 came to be issued by the writ petitioner. In response to the said legal notice, on 14-11-2006, the Chief Manager (PGP) had replied denying extension of pension scheme to the petitioner on the ground that she had not exercised the pension option and also not complied with the conditions of the pension scheme by refunding the bank’s contribution of the provident fund along with interest within the stipulated period, and accordingly, rejected the request of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21173 of 2008, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge.

Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, the State Bank of Mysore preferred the present writ appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-bank would submit that in terms of the conditions of pension scheme, an employee’s legal representatives have to exercise the option within a period of four months reckoned from 01-04-1994. This aspect was notified by the Bank through a general Circular No.025/94-95 dated 01-06-1994. Inasmuch as no option has been exercised by the writ petitioner within the stipulated time, she has made herself ineligible for extension of the benefits under the pension scheme. To buttress his contention, he would rely on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. MANGAL SINGH AND OTHERS (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 702 and RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORATION AND OTHERS Vs. MADU GIRI 2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 603 and submitted that in cases where strict compliance with the conditions of the pension scheme are not being fulfilled, there is no illegality in not extending the benefit of the pension scheme. He would submit that compliance with the conditions as laid down in the Pension Scheme are a pre-requisite condition, which would alone give a right to the legal heirs of the deceased-employee to avail the benefit of the pension scheme. In that view of the matter, he would submit that the order of the learned Single Judge runs contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and prays to set aside the order impugned.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent would submit that the petitioner is an illiterate woman residing in a remote village and at no point of time, there was any intimation or communication made by the bank informing the retired employees or their legal heirs about the pension scheme and if only she had been put on notice about the availability of such beneficial scheme, there would not have been any difficulty in her exercising option and also complying with the conditions of the Scheme. He would further submit that the husband of the respondent was also a low paid employee and retired as an Attender after servin