Honble JHA, CJ.–This special appeal has been registered on remand from the Supreme Court. The appellant had filed SLP (Civil) no. 1410/2003 giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 8553/2003 challenging the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 6.9.2002 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4808/1994. Leave was granted on 31.10.2003 but when the matter came up for hearing on 4.10.2005 the Supreme Court passed the following order:

``It is brought to our notice by learned counsel for the respondents that a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench is available and a specific stand in that regard has been taken by respondent No. 1. Since factual adjudication, more particularly of the question as to whether respondent No. 1 actually worked after 31.7.1985 or had availed leave preparatory to retirement would require detailed examination, we think it would be appropriate if the appeal filed in this Court which has been registered after grant of leave as a civil appeal be transmitted to the High Court to be treated as Letters Patent Appeal (Special Appeal). Since the matter is pending since long, we request the High Court to dispose of the Letters Patent Appeal in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of our order.

Accordingly, on receipt of the order and the records from the Supreme Court this appeal was registered on 16.1.2006.

(2). Respondent No. 1 Ram Narain Upadhayaya (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent) had filed the writ petition seeking direction on the appellant to allow him the benefit of pension under the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Pension Regulations, 1993 from 1.1.1986 after adjusting the provident fund amount paid to him. He also sought a declaration that the exclusion clause - to wit, ``excluding those on leave preparatory to retirement - occurring in regulation 3(3) of the Regulations as unconstitutional in case it is found that the benefit of pension can not be allowed in view of the exclusion clause. The learned Single Judge under the judgment impugned held that the clause excluding employees who had on leave preparatory retirement as on 1.1.1986 from the benefit of Pension Regulations was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Holding further, that the respondent was in service upto 31.1.1986, the learned Judge directed the appellant to extend the benefit of pension scheme to him after adjusting the amount of provident fund paid to him with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 1.1.1986 when the pension became due to him.

(3). Before referring to the relevant provisions and the point in dispute it may be mentioned that the respondent was originally in the service of the Reserve Bank of India. After establishment of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) under the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (in short, ``the Act), he joined the service of NABARD and became its employee on exercising option in terms of proviso to sub- section (6) of Section 50 of the Act with effect from 12.7.1982. On 16.12.1982, the NABARD i.e. appellant herein framed staff rules called the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Staff) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Staff Rules). These Staff Rules are applicable to all the employees of the NABARD appointed on or after 12.7.1982 or deemed to have been appointed under different sub-sections of Section 50 of the Act. Rule 19 of the Staff Rules provides for superannuation and retirement of employees in Groups `A, `B or `C at the age of 58 years (now 60 years). In terms of sub-rule (4) of rule 19, notwithstanding the provisions regarding superannuation/retirement, where an employee has earned ordinary leave, but not availed of the same, as on the date of retirement, he may avail such leave subject to maximum of six months (now ten months). In that case, he will be deemed to have finally retired from service on the exp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document