DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. By consent, the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The Petitioner is an eighty seven year old senior citizen. On 30 May 1986 he retired from the Allahabad Bank, the First Respondent, as a Special Assistant after thirty-nine years of service. The Petitioner, it is undisputed, belongs to the category of award staff. In the Allahabad Bank as it was prior to nationalisation, there was a pension scheme, governed by Pension Rules which stipulated that special assistants, clerks (including typists) and cash clerks would be entitled to pension at the rate of 35% of the full monthly basic pay drawn during the twelve months immediately preceding the date of retirement with a minimum pension of Rs.50/per month. The Petitioner continued to receive pension under the Pension Rules even after the nationalisation of the bank.

3. The Retired Employees Association of the bank had moved the High Court of Allahabad in assertion of the statutory right of the retired employees to receive gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The High Court held that the retired employees of the bank were entitled to the benefit of gratuity under the Act. The judgment of the High Court was carried in appeal to the Supreme Court. On 15 December 2009, in AllahabadBank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association 2010 (2) SCC 44. theSupreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the bank. The Supreme Court held that the payment of gratuity under the Act was a statutory right unless an exemption was granted by the appropriate government under the Act. The Supreme Court noted that pensionary benefits or retirement benefits, whether governed by a scheme or rules, constitute a package and pensionary benefits may include the payment of pension as well as gratuity. Upon the dismissal of the appeal filed by the bank, a circular was issued on 30 October 2010 stating that it had been decided to discontinue the scheme for payment of pension in lieu of gratuity pending amendment to the Officers Service Regulations. The Petitioner was in receipt of a princely sum of Rs.5,660/per month towards pension which came to be stopped with effect from 1 October 2010. Aggrieved, the Petitioner is before this Court in proceedings under Article 226.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that – (i) The payment of pension as a retiral benefit is not a largesse, but constitutes a valuable right in property; (ii) The sudden stoppage of pension to a retired employee aged eighty seven years is patently in violation of the principles of natural justice and even otherwise unlawful; (iii) Payment of pension was governed by the Pension Rules which were in force even prior to nationalisation; (iv) Under Section 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1969 the services of every employee in an existing bank were to continue on the same terms and conditions in the corresponding new bank inter alia with the same right to pension, gratuity and other matters until his employment in the new bank was terminated or until his remuneration terms and conditions were duly altered. Under Regulation 19, a power has been conferred upon the Board of Directors to frame regulations inter alia in regard to the establishment and maintenance of pension funds; (v) The conduct of the First Respondent in withdrawing the payment of pension by an administrative circular is completely arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioner inter alia under Article 14 of the Constitution. Besides, as a member of the award staff, the rights of the Petitioner could not have been divested ostensibly pending an amendment to the regulations governing the officers.

5. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent urged two submissions: (i) The Petitioner has not moved this Court with clean hands since in paragraph 3 of the Petition he has stated the he was never gi