The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioner to submit requisite papers for the release of terminal benefits and the respondent Bank's obligation to consider and decide the claim strictly in accordance with the law within a maximum period of three months.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the respondents. However, a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank is available on the record.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction upon the respondents to pay him the terminal benefits for which he is legally entitled to.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Typist by the competent authority of the Respondent State Bank of India and he joined the post on 12.04.1979. While the petitioner was posted and working on the said post at Sikandara Branch of the respondent State Bank of India, he was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding with respect to the charges of fraud and embezzlement of money of customers. The petitioner participated in the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding. The enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report and out of four charges, charge no.1 and 3 were found to have been proved. On the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority inflicted upon him the punishment of dismissal from service.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment finally preferred CWJC No. 10333 of 1995 assailing the correctness and validity of the order of punishment passed against him. The aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioner was finally disposed of by a Bench of this Court by the order dated 07.12.1995 (Annexure-2) and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority for passing a fresh order.

5. In view of the aforesaid order of remand passed by a Bench of this Court, the respondent Deputy General Manager (respondent no.2) being the appellate authority, passed a fresh order dated 2nd March 1996 (Annexure-3), whereby the appellate authority came to a conclusion that in views of gravity of charges, which were found to have been proved, the petitioner cannot be retained in service of the Bank any longer. However, in the light of the observation of this Court, quantum of punishment was modified from the order of dismissal into order of discharge from service, in terms of Para 521(5) (e) of the Sastry Award read with Desai Award. It was further held by the appellate authority that in view of the modification in the order of sentence, the petitioner shall be entitled to receive terminal benefits only as are applicable to a discharged employee of the Bank. The operative part of the order dated 2nd March 1996 (Annexure-3) passed by the respondent no.2 is reproduced herein below: “However, with due regard to the observation of the Hon?ble High Court, I have reconsidered the quantum of punishment leniently and change the order of „dismissal? into „discharge from service? in terms of para 521(5) (e) of Sastry Award read with Desai Award. Accordingly, you will be entitled to terminal benefits only as are applicable to an employee of the Bank who is discharged from service by way of punishment.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate order dated 2nd March 1996 (Annexure-3) preferred fresh writ petition before this Court, but unsuccessfully. Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioner also stood dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. Even the matter was taken to the Hon’ble Apex Court, but to no avail. Therefore, according to him, now the order dated 2nd March 1996 (Annexure-3) has attained its finality.

7. Though none is appearing on behalf of the respondents to oppose the prayer made in the present writ petition, yet this Court finds that a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank, which is available on record. The facts stated in the writ petition with respect to disciplinary proceeding and the final order passed by respondent no.2 have not been disputed by the respondent Bank. Only ground for denial of the terminal benefits to the