Hon'ble RATHORE, J.— Petitioner Gopal Prasad Varshney was appointed on the post of Clerk in the respondent Bank on 23.01.1965 after giving age relaxation of two and half years in view of his additional qualification and retired from the post of Senior Manager on attaining age of superannuation on 31.07.1995. The pension scheme was introduced in the Banking Industry in November, 1993. The respondent Bank also framed its own employees pension regulation in 1993. The total service of the petitioner with the respondent Bank was 31 years, whereas for 100% pension 33 years service is required and for short of 2 years service, the petitioner wanted to take the benefit of Rule 26(c) of The Bank of Rajasthan Limited (Employees') Pension Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') as prior to the service with the respondent Bank, the petitioner had served in the Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation for the period from 01.08.1959 to 09.01.1965. To this effect, the petitioner submitted his representations and the same were rejected by the respondent Bank as the Pension Rule 26 Second Proviso is not applicable in the case of the petitioner.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the reply given by the respondent bank vide letters dated 07.10.1996, 04.08.1997 and 06.06.2001, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking writ, order or direction in the following manner:-

“(i) By issuing an appropriate Writ, Order or direction the respondent be directed to call for the complete record and rules pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

(ii) By issuing an appropriate Writ, Order or direction the respondent be directed to count the period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded the upper age limit i.e. 2-1/2 years for addition to the qualifying service.

(iii) By issuing an appropriate Writ, Order or direction the pension of the petitioner may kindly be revised after addition the period to the qualifying service and the respondent be directed to pay the amount of arrears along with interest to the petitioner.

(iv) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.

(v) Costs of this Writ Petition may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Preliminary objection was raised before the learned Single Judge by the respondent Bank that the respondent-Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as held by this Court in the case of Arjun Singh Rajpurohit vs. Bank of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1536/2002), decided on 11.05.2002, wherein the learned Single Judge was of the view that the Bank of Rajasthan being a private company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is neither held to be a State, nor any instrumentality of the State.

4. Again similar question came for consideration before this Court in the case of Sheesh Ram Beniwal vs. General Manager, Bank of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3153/2000), decided on 20.07.2004, and having relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas & Ors., reported in JT 2003 (Suppl.1) SC 470, this Court has held that the respondent-Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India so as to maintain a writ petition before this Court.

5. Similar view in regard to private Banks has also been taken by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the cases of C.J. Thomas vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors, reported in 1987(2) LLJ 193; Immanual Paul Chakkola & Anr. vs. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1987(2) LLJ 198 as also by the Single Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Jata Shankar Mishra & Ors. vs. Benaras State Bank Ltd., Varanasi & Ors., reported in 2000(8) SLR 747 = RLW 2006(1) SC 299.

6. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 10.01.2005 having considered the judgments