The afore-stated Letters Patent Appeal and writ petition raise similar issues and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment for clarity and convenience. At the same time, as facts in each case are required to be noticed and there are dissimilarities, we have preferred to separately deal with each case. LPA No. 403/2015

2. LPA No. 403/2015 impugns the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5th May, 2016 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3521/2014 titled Kamlesh Pratap Singh vs. United Bank of India.

2.1 Pursuant to bipartite settlement dated 29.10.1993 signed between Indian Banks' Association and the Workmen Union, the United Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, (Regulations for short) were framed by the appellant/United Bank of India under Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1990.

2.2 The employees of the appellant Bank who were already covered under the Contributory Provident Fund were required to exercise the option to be governed by the pension Regulations within a period of 120 days from the date of notification. The Bank’s contribution to the Contributory Provident Fund, in the case of said employees, was required to be refunded.

2.3 The respondent-Kamlesh Pratap Singh, was an employee of the appellant- United Bank of India, who did not opt for the pension under the Regulations and remained covered by the Contributory Provident Fund scheme.

2.4 In 2009, departmental proceedings were initiated against Kamlesh Pratap Singh vide charge sheet dated 21.3.2009 and the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefit. The operative portion of the punishment order dated 23.12.2009 reads as under:"

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the proved misconduct, I find that the proposed punishment has been just and proper.

Therefore, I impose on you the following punishment under Clause 61 of the Memorandum of settlement dated 10.0.2002 with immediate effect:

"Compulsory Retirement" with superannuation benefits i.e., Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules prevailing in the Bank without disqualification from future employment.""

2.5 Kamlesh Pratap Singh not being a pension optee was paid terminal/superannuation benefit, i.e. his own as well as bank’s contribution to the provident fund and gratuity. There is no dispute or lis about this payment.

3. The United Bank of India by notification/circular dated 16th August, 2010 and in terms thereof had invited fresh options from the serving and retired employees to join the pension scheme. The short question is whether the respondent was eligible and qualified to exercise option and join the pension scheme as per notification/circular dated 16th August, 2010.

4. We would begin with referring to the relevant portion of the said circular/notification dated 16th August, 2010, which reads as under:-

"Indian Banks' Association has signed a settlement with the Workmen Unions and a Joint Note with Officers' Organization on 27.04.2010 in respect of extending another option for pension to the non optees who were in the service of the Bank prior to 29th September, 1995 and confirmed to be in service on or after the said date.

Existing Pension Scheme for which another option is being extended now is not applicable for those who joined the Bank on or after 01st April, 2010.

Salient features of the aforesaid settlement leading to extension of opportunity for another option for pension are as follows:

1. SERVING EMPLOYEES means those who were in service of the Bank as on 27th April, 2010 and joined the Bank prior to 1st April, 2010.

2. RETIRED EMPLOYEES means those who were in service of the Bank on or after 29th September, 1995 and ceased to be in service of the Bank on account of retirement on Superannuation, Voluntary retirement, death or on account of VRS under special scheme prior to 27th April, 201