( 1 ) THE observations made by the Honble apex court in case of M. S. Grewal and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others reported in (2001) 8 SCC 151 are relevant and material in light of the facts of the present case. The said observations are, therefore, reproduced as under:27. THE decision of this Court in D. K. Basu v. State of W. B. comes next. This decision has opened up a new vista in the jurisprudence of the country. The old doctrine of only relegating the aggrieved to the remedies available in civil law limits stands extended since Anand, J. (as His Lordship then was) in no uncertain terms observed: (SCC p. 439, para 45)"the courts have the obligation to satisfy the social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations. A court of law cannot close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities. Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim - civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at times perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the breadwinner of the family. "28. CURRENTLY judicial attitude has taken a shift from the old draconian concept and the traditional jurisprudential system - affection of the people has been taken note of rather seriously and the judicial concern thus stands on a footing to provide expeditious relief to an individual when needed rather than taking recourse to the old conservative doctrine of the civil courts obligation to award damages. As a matter of fact, the decision in D. K. Basu has not only dealt with the issue in a manner apposite to the social need of the country but the learned Judge with his usual felicity of expression firmly established the current trend of judicial oriented approach. Law courts will lose their efficacy if they cannot possibly respond to the need of the society - technicalities there might be many but the justice oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicality since technicality cannot and ought not to outweigh the course of justice. heard learned advocate Mr. Clerk for the petitioner and Mr. Macwan for the respondent bank. In this petition, by order dated 18. 4. 2001, rule was issued by this court and it was made returnable on 4. 9. 2001. Meanwhile, the respondent was directed to file affidavit in reply on or before 21. 7. 2001. On behalf of the respondent bank, affidavit in reply has been filed by one Shri R. N. Joshi, Manager (Personnel), Zonal Office, Ahmedabad.

( 2 ) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the denial of pension to the petitioner on the ground that the same is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, irrational, violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Brief facts of the present petition are to the effect that the petitioner herein had worked with the respondent bank for a period of more than 28 years. The petitioner was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 5. 12. 1986. Said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing special civil application no. 6982 of 1987 wherein consent terms were arrived at between the parties before this Court according to which the petitioner was treated to have voluntarily retired with effect from 5. 12. 1986. Thereafter, in the year 1995 and more particularly on 29. 9. 1995, the Union Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations" for the sake of brevity] were brought in to force according to which, the employees who have retired on or after 1. 11. 1993 are entitled to pension. According to clause 2 (y), retirement includes retirement on voluntary retirement i