SHARADABAI Vs. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of the respondent Canara Bank. She was issued a charge sheet on 9-6-1997 and on the basis of the departmental proceedings, by order dated 20-8-1988 the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner agitated the matter before the Central Industrial Tribunal which was dismissed on merits and the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed. The petitioner, then, after more than a decade of the issuance of the order of compulsory retirement, filed a representation dated 13-4-2011 for grant of pension in terms of the Canara Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1975. By the impugned order dated 8-8-2011 the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pension has been rejected. Challenging the same this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Sri.Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Ramesh Upadyaya, learned counsel for the respondent-bank and perused the records.

(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order refusing to grant pension to the petitioner has been passed on the basis of instructions/circular issued by the Head Office and not in terms of the Canara Bank Service Regulations, 1975 and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the instructions issued by the Head Office were in conformity with the provisions of the regulations and as such there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned in this petition.