The main legal point established in the judgment is that a Writ Petition against a private Bank is not maintainable, and the eligibility for pension under the Pension Regulations is determined based on the specific provisions and conditions outlined in the Regulations.

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J

The respondent-Writ Petitioner, who was allowed voluntary retirement with effect from 2. 1992 from the services of the appellant-Bank of Madura Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) on his request, preferred Writ Petition No.7744 of 2000, for direction to the appellant-Bank to pay pension. The prayer in the said Writ Petition, having been allowed by the learned single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Bank.

2. It is seen that with effect from 3. 2001, the Bank of Madura Limited merged with ICICI Bank Limited; subsequently, by virtue of the Order of the Reserve Bank of India, dated 22. 2002, the Bank of Madura Limited was changed as ICICI Bank Limited; accordingly, the name of the appellant in the cause title in the Memorandum of the Grounds of Writ Appeal was accepted by as ICICI Bank Limited as per the Order of the Court dated 17. 2002 in W.A.M.P.No.3581 of 2002 in W.A.S.R.No.52118 of 2002.

3. The questions involved in this Writ Appeal for determination are:

.(i) Whether a Writ Petition is maintainable against a private Bank? and

.(ii) Whether the respondent-Writ Petitioner was eligible for pension as per the Bank of Madura Employees Pension Regulations (for short, "Pension Regulations")?

4. Relevant facts of the case are that the Bank floated "Voluntary Retirement Scheme" (for short, VRS), vide Circular No.CO:STF:10:91-92, dated 25. 1991, pursuant to which, the respondent-Writ Petitioner applied for Voluntary Retirement on 11. 1991; his application seeking for VRS having been considered by the Bank, he was allowed to voluntarily retire and relieved with effect from 2. 1992 by the letter of the Bank, contained in Ref.No.2310, dated 2. 1992. Another VRS was floated by the Bank by Circular No.CO:STF:39:94-95, dated 27. 1994; thereafter, the respondent-Writ Petitioner applied for "pension" under the Banks Pension Scheme, on which no action was taken by the Bank.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank relied on different decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his plea that a Writ Petition against a "private Bank" is not maintainable. He also placed reliance on the relevant Pension Regulations, namely "Bank of Madura Employees Pension Regulations" (in lieu of earlier Regulations of January 1995) in support of the stand of the Bank that the respondent-Writ Petitioner was not even eligible for pension in terms of the said Pension Regulations.

6. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the respondent-Writ Petitioner, the Bank cannot deny pension to its retired employees and no discrimination can be made between "retired employees" and voluntarily retired employees.

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the judgments referred by one or other counsel, as also the relevant provisions of the said Pension Regulations.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Writ Petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 = 1983 Lab.I.C. 1 (D.S.Nakara vs. Union of India), wherein the Supreme Court held that the classification in revised pension formula among the pensioners on the basis of the date of retirement specified in memoranda, is violative and arbitrary of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and the same being severable, beneficial part was retained and made applicable to all pensioners. Reliance was also placed on the said judgment (Nakaras case) to suggest that the payment of pension is a welfare measure, wherein the retiral benefits is allowed on considerations of States obligation to its citizens, for having rendered service during the useful span of life. The reasons underlining the grant of pension as laid down in the said case, was also referred to.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Writ Petitioner, while submitting that payment of pension is a "public function", amounting to "public duty", relied on the decision of the Supre