-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 136 OF 2002 Rajendra R. Khona, retired Manager Scale-II ) C/1, 112, Hari Om Apartment, S.V.Road, ) Borivli (West), Mumbai-400 092 )..Petitioner versus 1. Allahabad Bank through General Manager (PA) ) H.O.2, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta-700 001 ) 2. Allahabad Bank through A.G.M. (PA) ) H.O.2, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta-700 001 ) 3. Allahabad Bank through General Manager, Regional) office, Manish Commercial Centre, South Wing, ) Ground floor, 216-A, Dr. Annie Besant Road, ) Worli, Mumbai. )..Respondents Mr. Vinod N. Tayde for the petitioner. None for the respondent. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT , JJ. DATE: JUNE 11 , 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.): The petitioner who has taken the benefit under the Allahabad Bank Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, has challenged the action of the -2- Bank in not giving him the benefit under the Pension Scheme framed by the Bank by adding five years service as per the Pension Rules. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist in the year 1970. At the relevant time i.e. in 2000 he was working as a Manager,Scale-II, at the Matunga Branch of the Bank. On 28th October, 2000, the Bank introduced VRS-2000. The petitioner had applied for getting the benefit under the said scheme and he was permitted to retire under the aforesaid scheme. 3. The petitioner thereafter preferred an application on 7th December, 2001 requesting the Bank to pay him necessary pension benefits under Regulation 29 (5) of the Allahabad Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995. The grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in not paying the pension amount as per Regulation 29 (5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 is arbitrary. The petitioner has also challenged the circular dated 5th March, 2001, a copy of which is at Exhibit-B to the petition by which it is provided that the employees who have completed 15 years but less than 33 years qualifying service will get pro-rata pension as envisaged under sub-section (6) of Section 35 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and those who have -3- completed more than 20 years of qualifying service will not get the benefit of sub-secti9on (5) of Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 . It is the grievance of the petitioner that since he had completed thirty years of service, he was entitled to get the benefit of Regulation 29 (5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the necessary documents, Scheme as well as the Regulations framed by the Bank. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India and another vs. K. Mohandas and others 2009 (4) Scale 576. Since the issue raised in this petition is covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is required to the allowed. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of five years under Regulation 29 (5) of the Regulations, 1995. Whatever benefits the petitioner is entitled to, the same shall be paid to him within three months from today. However, the -4- petitioner shall not be entitled to interest on such amount. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. P.B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.