1 WP1186/96 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1186 OF 1996 Netraprakash K. Bhog ...Petitioner v/s Bank of India and others ...Respondents Ms Meena Doshi for Petitioner. Mr R.S. Pai with Mr A. Surve i/b M/s Haresh Mehta and Co. for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K. TATED JJ. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2011. 2 WP1186/96 P.C. :- 1] The facts which are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent No.1  Bank as an Officer. On 5th July 1991 he tendered his resignation on completing 21 ½ years of service and he requested the Bank to waive the notice period. He also stipulated that in case in future any retirement benefits are available, then this resignation be treated as retirement. By communication dated 22nd July 1991 the Bank declined to waive the notice period. The petitioner therefore by his communication dated 11th August 1991 informed that his notice period starts on 5th July 1991 and on completion of three months, he will stand relieved from the service of the Bank i.e. 5th October 1991. It appears that in 1993, a Pension Scheme was introduced by the Bank. The petitioner applied for the benefits of the pension scheme and requested the Bank to treat his resignation as retirement. The Bank declined to do so and 3 WP1186/96 therefore this petition has been filed. 2] The petitioner claims in this petition that his resignation should be treated as retirement and he should be held entitled to the benefits of 1993 Pension Scheme. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. We have perused the record. In our opinion, it is clear from the letters dated 5th July 1991 and 11th August 1991 and the reply of the Bank dated 22nd July 1991 that what was tendered by the petitioner was pure and simple resignation. Clause 22(1) of 1993 Pension Scheme is relevant and it reads as under :- 22.Forfeiture of service : (1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. Perusal of the above quoted clause shows 4 WP1186/96 that an Officer who has resigned from service has to forfeit entire past and therefore, he is not entitled to any pensionary benefits. Had the petitioner challenged the validity of this clause, then only the petitioner could have claimed that he is entitled to the benefits of 1993 Pension Scheme. There is no challenge to this clause in the petition. Therefore, in our opinion, the petitioner cannot, in the face of provisions of 1993 Pension Scheme, be entitled to any pensionary benefits. The leaned counsel appearing for petitioner states that the hearing of the matter should be adjourned for a week so that she can apply for amendment and challenge clause 22(1) quoted above. In our opinion, this request cannot be granted firstly because the request is made at the end of the hearing and secondly permitting to challenge clause 22(1) of 1993 Pension Scheme in a petition filed in 1996 now will defeat the ends of justice. The petition is disposed off. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 5 WP1186/96 Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE K.K. TATED )