( 1 ) AS in all the three petitions common question of law and facts arise, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. It is required to be noted that all the three petitions were heard by this Court together on 18th April, 2007 and they were adjourned to 25th April, 2007 at the instance of the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent Bank, however, by mistake Special Civil Application Nos. 9275 of 1997 and 9276 of 1997 were adjourned to 2nd May, 2007 and only Special Civil Application No. 9277 of 1997 was notified on Board on 25th April, 2007. Considering the fact that in all the three petitions the common question of law and facts arises and were also heard earlier together, this Court has called for the papers of Special Civil application Nos. 9275 of 1997 and 9276 of 1997 from the Registry, and thus, even the aforesaid two Special Civil Applications are also heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.

( 2 ) BY way of all these three Special Civil Applications, the respective petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing the respondents to pay full pension to the petitioners from the date of their retirement by declaring the decision of the respondents to pay only 75% of the pension to the respective petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, null and void.

( 3 ) ALL the three petitioners were serving in the respondent No. 1-Bank and departmental inquiries were initiated against them and they were suspended. That after full-fledged inquiries, a major penalty of compulsory retirement from the bank s services was imposed upon the respective petitioners as provided in regulation 4 (f) of the Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal)Regulations, 1976. The said order was passed on 31st December, 1996. It appears that by order dated 18th October, 1997, the respective petitioners were paid arrears of their pension. It is the case on behalf of the respective petitioners that they were entitled to basic pension of Rs. 4825/- per month, however, they were paid only a sum of Rs. 3619/- per month as basic pension, and therefore, they were deprived of a sum of Rs. 1206/- in their basic pension, which comes to 25% of their basic pension. It is the case on behalf of the respective petitioners that by representation dated 27th October, 1997 they requested the respondent No. 3 to pay them full pension and they accepted the pension paid to them under protest as they were in need of money. It is the case on behalf of the respective petitioners that no decision has been taken on their representation and 25% of the pension has been withheld exercising the powers under Regulation 33 of the Bank of India (Employees ) Pension regulations, 1995, and therefore, they have preferred the present Special Civil applications for the aforesaid reliefs.

( 4 ) SHRI Suthar, learned Advocate appearing for the respective petitioners has submitted that the impugned action of the respondents in withholding 25% of the pension is absolutely illegal and against the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that before withholding 25 % of the pension, no opportunity of being heard has been given to the petitioners. It is further submitted that in fact, before taking a decision of withholding of 25% of the pension as provided under regulation 33 of the Pension Rules, Board of Directors were not consulted. It is also further submitted by him that even the appellate authority before whom the order of compulsory retirement was passed, also recommended to pay full pension, still 25% of the pension has been withheld. It is also further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, withholding of 25% of the pension is not warranted, and therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil applications directing the respondents to pay full pension to the respective petitioners.

( 5 ) SHRI Prabhav Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the