(1.) RULE . Shri. Amar Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank waives service of notice of Rule. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, rule is fixed forthwith.
(2.) SHRI . Oza, learned counsel appearing with Shri. Gupta for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in fact eligible and entitled to avail the benefits of Pension Scheme by opting for voluntary retirement at the relevant time. Instead of mentioning the same he used the word "Resignation" which has come in his way in availing the benefits of pension. But for the word 'resignation' the petitioner's case would not have been covered by forfeiture clause and therefore, liberty be reserved to the petitioner to approach the respondent Bank with an appropriate representation, that may be considered by the Bank sympathetically.
(3.) SHRI . Amar Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has relied upon the affidavit of the respondent and the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in the case of RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. CECIL DENNIS SOLOMON AND ANOTHER, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 461 and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Coram: C.K. Thakker and A.L. Dave, JJ) dated 5/11/1998 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 574 of 1997 in Special Civil Application No. 249 of 1997.