1. The petitioner, who was compulsorily retired by the respondent Bank vide order dated 23.08.1988, claims pension and challenge is made to Regulation No. 33 of the Bank of India (Employee’s) Pension Regulations, 1995, insofar as it denies pension to compulsory retirees prior to 01.11.1993.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nandish Chudgar for Nanavati Associates for the respondent Bank.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 18.08.1928. He had joined the service of the respondent Bank as Clerk on 18.10.1948 and he was promoted as an officer on 16.11.1960. He was further promoted as Chief Manager in the year 1983. His date of birth being 18.08.1928, and the superannuation age being 60 years, he was to retire on 31.08.1988. About a week before effective date of retirement, respondent Bank passed an order on 23.08.1988, ordering compulsory retirement of the petitioner, which was by way of penalty for misconduct. The said punishment order is not the subject matter of this petition. It is also stated that whatever was payable at the relevant time as per Rules, was paid to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that even with the penalty of compulsory retirement, he is entitled to pension, and denial by the respondent Bank is only on the ground that the said penalty was inflicted on 23.08.1988, which is prior to cut-off date 01.11.1993 stipulated in Regulation No.33 of the Pension Regulations of the respondent Bank, which reads as under:

“33. Compulsory Retirement Pension :

(1) An employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 1st day of November, 1993 in terms of Discipline and Appeal Regulations or settlement by the authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty may be granted pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.

(2) Whenever in the case of bank employee the Competent Authority passes an order (whether original, appellate or in exercise of power of review) awarding a pension less than the full compensation pension admissible under these regulations, the Board of Directors shall be consulted before such order is passed.

(3) A pension granted or awarded under sub-regulation (1) or, as the case may be, under sub-regulation (2) shall not be less than the amount of rupees three hundred and seventy five per mensem.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Compulsory Retirement Pension is one class of pension and those who are compulsorily retired for misconduct, on and after 01.11.1993 are entitled to be considered for grant of pension in terms of Regulation No.33, which is reproduced above. It is pointed out that it is the cut off date in this regard, which is coming in the way of petitioner. It is indicated that, had the date of punishment order been, after 01.11.1993 but before issuance of Pension Regulations which happened in the year 1995, then also the petitioner was entitled to pension, as per the Regulation of the respondent Bank itself. So far as prescription of 01.11.1993 as the cut-off date is concerned, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is arbitrary, it has no rationale and this issue, according to him, is already concluded by the decisions of various High Courts, as confirmed by Honourable the Supreme Court of India. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Madhav K. Kritikar Vs. Bank of India (respondent Bank itself), in Writ Petition No.620 of 1996 dated 07.01.1997, Annexure-B to this petition. It is also indicated that the said decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged by the respondent Bank before Honourable the Supreme Court of India and the said challenge failed. The said order of Honourable the Supreme Court of Indi