IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement to pension benefits under the Pension Regulations and related circulars extends to all eligible employees, irrespective of the type of retirement.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. - The instant LPA has been filed challenging judgment dated 01.08.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 366/2019 ("Impugned Judgment"), whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by the Respondent-herein.

2. The facts in brief are that the Respondent-herein was employed with the Appellant Bank and was retired prematurely by the Competent Authority on 27.09.2004 on the basis of a review done by the Special Review Committee under Regulation 19 of Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 ("Service Regulations"). The Appellants state that the Respondent was paid provident fund, including Bank's contribution to provident fund, and gratuity, however, was not paid pension as he had not opted for the same under the Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 ("Pension Regulations"). It is their case that as per the Pension Regulations, pension is payable only to those employees who opted for payment of pension in lieu of the Bank's contribution to provident fund within the stipulated period.

3. It is stated that the employees who had failed to opt for pension in lieu of Bank's contribution to provident fund in 1995, were given one more opportunity to opt for the same on 27.04.2010 vide Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement ("Joint Note") signed at the industry level between Indian Banks' Association ("IBA") representing members banks and various Workmen Unions/Officers Association. As per the Joint Note, certain employees as specified in the Joint Note, were given a 2nd option to join the pension scheme, provided they refund the Bank's Contribution to provident fund already received by them.

4. The Department of PF & Pension Fund of the Appellant Bank ("Respondent No. 2") issued Circular No. 06/2018 dated 07.06.2018 ("Subject Circular") offering 2nd Option for Pension to Compulsory Retired Officers/Employees. The Respondent applied for pension under the Subject Circular on 08.08.2018. It is stated that on 10.08.2018, the Respondent received a letter from the Appellant Bank wherein it was stated that the Respondent was retired in public interest under the Service Regulations and therefore is not eligible to exercise 2ndoption to join the pension scheme as per the Subject Circular.

5. Subsequent to the letter dated 10.08.2018 received by the Respondent, the Respondent wrote a letter dated 14.08.2018 to the President/General Manager of the All India Punjab National Bank Officers Association and a letter dated 02.09.2018 to the Chairman of the Appellant Bank, regarding non-consideration of his application for pension made under the Subject Circular. Subsequently, on 11.09.2018, the Respondent states in the underlying writ petition that he received a call from the Chief Manager of Respondent No. 2, asking the Respondent to deposit his contribution towards provident fund of amount of Rs.10 lakhs. The Respondent is stated to have deposited the aforesaid amount through RTGS however received back the amount on the same day. Aggrieved, the Respondent approached this Court by way of the underlying writ petition with the following prayer:

"Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), directing the Respondents to release the pension to the Petitioner and the arrears of pension with effect from 27.11.2009 in terms of Circular No.06/2018 dated 07.06.2018 issued by the Respondent Bank".

6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsels for the parties and perusing the material on record allowed the writ petition with a direction to the Appellant-herein to release the retiral benefits and arrears of the Respondent-herein within 4 weeks. The relevant paragraphs of the Impugned Judgment are reproduced as under:

"19. Mr. Sharma has strongly argued that those officers who retired in public interest either compulsorily or prematurely, they are getting pension benefits whereas it is denied to the petitioner.

20. Learned counsel for the respon