Abdul Nazeer, J.

The first petitioner is the widow of A.Y. Nayak, an Employee of first respondent-Bank and the second petitioner is their son. A.Y. Nayak died in harness on 9.8.1997. In this case, petitioners have questioned the validity of the order at Annexure `A', dated 24.4.2003, whereby the representation filed by them seeking grant of monetary benefits and family pension to the first petitioner has been rejected by the Bank.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

A.Y. Nayak was working as a Branch Manager, Bhartan Bazaar Branch, Moradabad, of the respondent-Bank in the year 1984-85. While he was working as such, a charge memo dated 25.8.1986 was served on him accusing him of violating Regulation 3(1) of the Syndicate Bank Officers Employees (Conduct Regulation) 1976 read with Section 24 of the Regulations. He filed the reply denying the allegations contained in the charge memo. The Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the delinquent officer, appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations contained in the charge memo. On the first sitting of the enquiry proceedings, the delinquent officer requested the enquiry officer to direct the Presenting Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to furnish him certain documents. He had also informed the enquiry officer the relevancy of those documents. It was stated that those documents are required by him to defend himself effectively in the enquiry proceedings and also to cross-examine the witnesses of the management. The enquiry officer being satisfied with the relevancy of the documents the delinquent officer was requesting, directed the Presenting Officer to furnish those documents or atleast permit the delinquent officer to inspect the documents at the place and time to be notified by him. The Bank examined two witnesses in support of the allegations made in the charge memo. They marked documents Ex.Mx1 to Ex.Mx9. After the completion of the recording of the evidence of the management and cross-examination by the delinquent officer, the Presenting Officer produced before the enquiry officer 8 documents out of 13 documents requested by the delinquent officer. The delinquent officer had examined himself in the said proceedings. After the completion of the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 7.11.1988 to the disciplinary authority holding that the delinquent officer was guilty of two of the components out of the four components in the charge memo. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 11.1.1990 dismissing the delinquent officer from the services of the Bank. The appeal and the review filed by the delinquent officer were also rejected by the authorities concerned. The delinquent officer filed a writ petition challenging the said order before this Court in W.P.No. 12955/1991. This Court after considering the rival contentions of the parties allowed the writ petition by its order dated 24.9.2001 (reported in 2002 (1) KLJ 85). Taking note of the fact that the delinquent officer had expired during the pendency of the writ petition, this Court held that his legal representatives are entitled to the monetary benefits and the Bank was directed to calculate the monetary benefits payable to the delinquent officer from the date of suspension till the date of payment in accordance with the Service Regulations of the Bank with interest at 12% from the date of the order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Bank filed an appeal in W.A.No.7004/2001. A Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 26.8.2002 upheld the order of the learned Single Judge. However, the award of interest by the learned Single Judge from the date of suspension till the date of payment has been set aside. Thereafter, the Bank had made payments of the salary of the delinquent officer to the petitioners from 10.12.1985 to 9.8.1997 as per Annexure `E. Howe