( 1 ) THE writ petitioner is the writ appellant. The Appellant feeling aggrieved by the order dated 27. 7. 1999 passed by a learned Single judge of this Court dismissing the Writ Petition and holding that the appellant is not entitled for pension, has preferred this writ appeal.

( 2 ) THE events leading to the passing of the impugned order were that the petitioner was an employee of Syndicate Bank, the respondent herein on the ground that the Appellant remained absent unauthorisedly with effect from 11. 03. 1992 a notice dated 18. 11. 92 was issued to her calling upon her either to report back for duty or submit explanation for her absence within 30 days, ie. on or before 21. 12. 92. The Appellant was also informed that if she failed to comply with the above direction, she would be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank on expiry of 30 days from the date of notice in terms of Clause 17 (a) of the V Bipartite Settlement. The Appellant replied to the notice on 17. 12. 92. According to the bank s management, as the explanation of the Appellant was not satisfactory, the Bank sent a letter dated 10. 12. 1992 informing the appellant that she was deemed to have vo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document