Judgment 1. THE respondents herein filed writ petition against the appellants for certain reliefs relating to the retirement age of officers of Allahabad Bank which is a nationalised bank. The learned trial Judge by order dated the 27th April, 1994 passed certain directions by way of interim order. Being aggrieved by such interim order the appellants being the Allahabad Bank and its authorities preferred this appeal against the said interim order dated 27th April, 1994. In the appeal however both sides agreed that the Division Bench taking up the appeal may hear and dispose of the writ petition itself and accordingly this Bench has heard the parties on the merit of the writ petition, and by this order the writ petition itself is going to be disposed of along with the appeal. 2. THE writ petitioner no. 1 is the All India Allahabad Bank Officers' association which is a registered society. The writ petitioners nos. 2 and 3 are the President and the Secretary respectively of the said Officers' association. The writ petitioner no. 4 is an officer of the said bank. By an ordinance dated the 19th July, 1969 promulgated by the President of India the Allahabad Bank Limited along with all assets, liabilities and employees were nationalised by the Government of India and handed over to allahabad Bank with effect from the said date. Subsequently, the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 came into force with retrospective effect from 19th July, 1969. It may be mentioned here, and this fact is well-known, that several banks were also nationalised along with the Allahabad Bank. Subsequently, the Banking companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 came into force with retrospective effect from 19th July, 1969. It may be mentioned here, and this fact is well-known, that several banks were also nationalised along with the Allahabad Bank. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the said act provides that every officer or employee of an existing bank shall become, on the commencement of the said Act, (that is, 19th July, 1969) an officer or other employee, as the case may be of the corresponding new bank and shall hold his office or service in that bank on the same terms and condition and with the same rights to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the undertaking of the existing bank had not been transferred to and vested in the corresponding new bank and continue to do so until and unless his employment in the corresponding new bank is terminated or until his remuneration, terms or conditions are duly altered by the corresponding new bank. By a circular dated the 31st May, 1968, Annexure- 'a' to the writ petition, issued by the allahabad Bank Limited on the basis of the decision of the Board of directors taken in their meeting held on 28th May, 1968 the age of superannuation of officers of the bank was fixed at 58 years subject to the proviso that extension upto the age of 60 years, one year at a time, might be allowed provided the individual concerned continued to maintain good health and had a satisfactory record of service to his credit. That was the pre- nationalisation position. Under regulation 19 (1) of the Allahabad Bank (Officers') service Regulations, 19?9 the age of retirement of officer employees of the bank was required to be determined by the Board of directors of the bank in accordance with the guidelines issued by the government of India from time to time, and the guidelines issued by the government of India in the matter were as follows : "(i) An officer employee of the bank recruited/promoted prior to 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age. (ii) An officer employee of the bank recruited prior to 19th July, 1969 but promoted as an officer on or after 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age" (Vide. (ii) An officer employee of the bank recruited prior to 19th July, 1969 but promoted as an officer on or after 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age" (Vide. Para 10 of the writ petition) As the retirement age of officers of the Allahabad Bank was for all practical purposes 60 years all along, the above guidelines of the government had the effect of depriving the officers of the benefit of the retirement age of 60 years and accordingly the above Government guidelines retiring all officers on completion of 58 years of age created wide resentment amongst the officer employees of the bank and consequently allahabad Bank brought the matter to the notice of the Government of India by representations from time to time seeking redress in the matter. 3. THE Government of India in the D. O. letter dated the 1st June, 1983 addressed by the Director to the Chairman and Managing Director, allahabad Bank, Annexure- 'b' to the writ petition, informed that the matter had been reconsidered by the Government in the light of the facts furnished and the Government had taken note of the fact that in terms of the Board resolution of the bank dated the 28th May, 1968 the bank had been following a practice of giving extension to the officer employees upto the age of 60 years and accordingly the Government had no objection to the bank continuing the practice of giving extension upto 60 years of age to officers appointed before 19th July, 1969, but the extension however should be given on a case to case basis and only where such extension was considered in the interest of the bank. It was however made clear in the said D. O. letter that that officers recruited on or after 19th July, 1969 would have to be retired on completion off 58 years of age in accordance with the practice prevailing in the banking industry and no extension should be given to them. It was however made clear in the said D. O. letter that that officers recruited on or after 19th July, 1969 would have to be retired on completion off 58 years of age in accordance with the practice prevailing in the banking industry and no extension should be given to them. The Board of Directors of Allahabad Bank in their meeting held on 13th June, 1983 accepted the above Government guidelines and pursuant thereto the bank by its circular dated 5th July, 1983, Annexure- 'c' to the writ petition, ordained that the bank would continue to follow the practice of giving extension to the officer employees upto the age of 60 years, so far as the officers appointed before 19th July, 1969 were concerned but the extension however would be given on a case to case basis and only where such extension was considered in the interest of the bank. It was however made clear therein that officers recruited on or after 19th July, 1969 would retire on completion of 58 years of age and no extension would be given to them. The various Association of the officers of the Allahabad Bank however were not satisfied with the revised government guidelines and made representations in the matter. " 4. THE Government of India by letter dated the 28th November, 1991, annexure- 'd' to the writ petition, addressed to the General Manager, allahabad Bank communicated that the matter had been reviewed by the government and as per the Government decision in the matter of age of retirement of officers of Allahabad Bank the following guidelines were issued in terms of Regulation 19 (1) of the Allahabad Bank (Officers')Service Regulations, 1979 : "(1) An officer employee of the bank recruited/promoted prior to 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age. The competent authority may, at his absolute discretion, grant extension to such an employee beyond 58 years of age, upto 60 years of age should such an extension be considered necessary in the interests of the bank. (2) An officer employee of the bank who was in its service prior to 19th July, 1969, but promoted as an officer on or after 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age. (2) An officer employee of the bank who was in its service prior to 19th July, 1969, but promoted as an officer on or after 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age. The competent authority may, at his absolute discretion, grant extension to such an employee beyond 58 years of age, upto 60 years of age, should such an extension be considered in the interests of the bank. (3) An officer employee of the bank recruited whether as an Award staff or as an officer employee on or after 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age." It was clarified in the said letter that the discretion was not to be exercised as a matter of routine and the extension should be given on a case to case basis where it was considered necessary in the interests of the bank. Accepting the above guidelines issued by the Government of India the Allahabad Bank issued circular dated the 10th March, 1992. Annexure- 'e' to the writ petition, in the same terms as was laid down by the government of India in the aforesaid guidelines dated the 28th November, 1991. The bank's circular also recorded inter alia that the absolute discretion of the competent authority with regard to grant of extension beyond 58 years of age upto 60 years of age as spelt out therein should not be exercised as a matter of routine and the extension should be given on a case to case basis where it was considered necessary in the interests of the bank and that such extension might be given for one year at a time. This circular of the bank dated the 10th March, 1992, Annexure- 'e' and the aforesaid Government letter dated the 28th November, 1991, Annexure- 'd' on the basis of which the Said bank circular was issued have been challenged in the writ petition on the ground that there has been undue discrimination between the employee officers who were appointed as employee of the bank before 19th July, 1969 and were promoted on or before or after the said date and those who are appointed on or after the said date. 5. 5. IT is also the contention of the petitioners that the conferment of the power of extension of service beyond 58 years upto 60 years of age (in respect of officer employees of the bank who were recruited/promoted prior to 19th July, 1969 or who were in service prior to 19th July, 1969 but promoted as officer on or after the said date) as a matter of absolute discretion of the competent authority as provided in the impugned circular of the bank dated 10th March, 1992 and the Government letter dated the 28th November, 1991 which are Annexure- E and D respectively to the writ petition, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in asmuchas such power is purportingly arbitrary, absolute and not canalised by any guideline to be followed in the matter. This argument, although at its first blush appears to be forceful yet appears on closer scrutiny to be of no substance. Those categories of employees of the bank who were in service of the bank before 19th July, 1969 and who were promoted as officer before or after that date, it will be seen, were given more or less the same benefit regarding the age of retirement which the officer of the bank were enjoying before the nationalisation of the bank as will appear form the bank's circular dated 31st May, 1968 which is Annexure- A to the petition. That circular of the bank dated the 31st May, 1968 shows before nationalisation the age of superannuation of the officers of the bank was 58 years but the bank authority was entitled to grant extension upto the age of 60 years, one year at a time, provided the individual concerned continued to maintain a good health and had a satisfactory record of service to his credit. By the impugned circular dated 10th March, 1992, annexure- E also the age of superannuation for the officer employees of the bank who were recruited/promoted prior to 19th July, 1969 or who were in service prior to that date but promoted as officer on or after the said date has been fixed at 58 years giving however a discretion termed as 'absolute discretion' upon the competent authority to grant extension to such an employee officer beyond 58 years of age upto 60 years. At the same time it was clearly provided in the circular that the absolute discretion of the competent authority with regard to grant of extension should not be exercised as a matter of routine and the 'extension should be given on a case to case basis where it is considered necessary in the interest of the bank'. It was further provided that such extension should be given for one year at a time. Therefore the circular read as a whole will clearly show that the absolute discretion purportingly conferred upon the competent authority in the matter was not really absolute in the extreme and undiluted sense of the term and its exercise was rather confined to such cases, where on individual evaluation, the exercise of such discretion was considered necessary in the interest of the bank. Therefore the circular clearly laid down the guideline on the basis of which that discretion, although termed as absolute discretion, was required to be exercised and that guideline was the necessity of granting the extension in individual case in the interest of the bank. The interest of the bank being the guiding factor in each individual case for considering the question of granting extension, the discretion or for that matter the phraseology of absolute discretion, can not be said to be really an absolute, un-guided, capricious or arbitrary discretion. In the circumstances no interference is called for in the matter as the exercise of the discretion inspite of being termed as absolute discretion, has been confined only to such cases where such exercise will be considered necessary in the interest of the bank. 6. AS regards the next contention of the petitioners about undue discrimination regarding the age of superannuation between the employee officers who were appointed as employee of the bank before 19th July, 1969 and were promoted as officer either before or after that date and those who were appointed after the said date, the point is already covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in B. S. Yadav v. The Chief Manager, central Bank of India, A. I. R. 1987 SC 1706. The Central Bank of India was also one of the banks like Allahabad Bank that was nationalise. Before nationalisation the retirement age of officers of the Central Bank of India was 60 years. The Central Bank of India was also one of the banks like Allahabad Bank that was nationalise. Before nationalisation the retirement age of officers of the Central Bank of India was 60 years. After nationalisation, following the guideline issued by the central Government in the matter, the Board of Directors of the Central bank of India framed Rules regarding the age of retirement which was as follows : "the age of retirement of the officers in the bank on or after the appointed date shall be determined as under: (1) An officer employee of the bank recruited/promoted prior to 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of the 60 years of age. (2) An officer employee of the bank recruited prior to 19th July, 1969 but promoted as an officer on or after 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 60 years of age. (3) An officer employee of the bank recruited whether as an award staff or as an officer employee on or after 19th July, 1969 shall retire on completion of 58 years of age". There also the said Rules were challenged on the ground of undue discrimination between the different; groups of employees requiring one group to retire at the age of 58 years and the others at 60 years of age. The supreme Court in paragraph 12 of the said decision in B.S. Yadav v. Central Bank of India (supra) noted that the difference between the age of retirement of officer employees falling under rules 1 and 2 of the Rules for age of Retirement (quoted above) and the age of retirement of the officer employees falling under rule 3 thereof arose on account of the decision taken by the Government of India and the bank not to alter to their prejudice the right which the employees of the bank who had been recruited prior to 19th July, 1969 had acquired under the circular issued by the Central Bank of India limited on 11th March, 1969 before nationalisation of the banks. The corresponding circular of the Allahabad bank issued before nationalisation, regarding the age of retirement of officers, it may be mentioned here, is the one dated the 31st May, 1968. Annexure- A to the writ petition. The corresponding circular of the Allahabad bank issued before nationalisation, regarding the age of retirement of officers, it may be mentioned here, is the one dated the 31st May, 1968. Annexure- A to the writ petition. The Supreme court in paragraph 12 of the said decision in the case of Central Bank of India (supra) made the following observations in the context of age of retirement of the employees of the Central Bank of India : "section 12 (2) of the Act, as already stated, had provided that any employee of the bank whose services were transferred to the corresponding new bank could hold his office in that bank on the same terms and conditions and with the same rights to pension, gratuity, etc. until they were duly altered by the corresponding new bank. Since there was no alteration of the condition relating to the age of superannuation, the said officers continued to enjoy the benefit of the condition of service relating to retirement which was in existence prior to nationalisation of banks. But as regards employees who were recruited after 19th July, 1969 the bank fixed the age of superannuation at 58 years having regard to the prevailing age of superannuation of the members belonging to the various services in public sector corporations, Central Government and many of the state Governments" 7. IN the said case of Central Bank of India also it was urged in support of the writ petition that there could not be two different ages of retirement in the case of officers of the bank and that since rule 3 of the Rules for Age of Retirement required the officers, who were recruited subsequent to 19th July, 1969 to retire on completion of 58 years of age while others falling under rules 1 and. 2 of the said Rules could continue till 60 years of age, rule 3 was liable to be struck down as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 2 of the said Rules could continue till 60 years of age, rule 3 was liable to be struck down as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was however pleaded in that case before the supreme Court by the bank and the Union of India that since the employees whose services were transferred to the Bank under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act were entitled to continue in service till 60 years of age by virtue of the conditions of service prevailing in the Central Bank of India Ltd. prior to nationalisation of banks, the bank and the government found that it would be unjust and unfair to reduce the age of superannuation from 60 years in the case of such employees and, therefore, did not alter the said condition of service and in the absence of my alteration, they were entitled to continue to be in service till they attained 60 years of age even nationalisation by virtue of Sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act. It was further urged before the Supreme Court that the officers and the employees other than the award staff recruited after the nationalisation of the banks were required to retire on completion of 58 years of age which was the age of superannuation generally prevailing in the services of all public sector corporations, Central government and many of the State Governments and that since the employees recruited prior to 19th July, 1969 belonged to a different class altogether, it could not be said that there had been violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution, and the difference in the ages of retirement of the two classes of officers was due to historical reasons. In paragraph 15 of the said decision in the Central Bank of India (supra) the Supreme Court recorded its own opinion in the following language : "15. It is no doubt true that the order of appointment in the case of first petitioner stated that he would be governed by the terms and conditions which were applicable to the other officers of the bank. That condition, however, did rot prevent the bank from making a regulation which was applicable exclusively to the officers recruited after July 19, 1969. That condition, however, did rot prevent the bank from making a regulation which was applicable exclusively to the officers recruited after July 19, 1969. In the case of officers falling under rules 1 and 2 of the Rules for Age of Retirement no extra benefit was conferred on them. They were only permitted to carry the benefit of the Rules for age of Retirement which was prevailing in the former banking company which was taken over by the Government on nationalisation. We are of the view that there were good reasons to make a distinction between the employees who had entered service prior to nationalisation and those who joined thereafter. At the time of nationalisation the corresponding new banks did not have their own employees to run the vast business taken over under the Act. There was, therefore, necessity to secure the services of the employees of the former banking companies without causing much dissatisfaction to them. There was also need for standardising the conditions of service of all such employees belonging to the 14 banks. The Government of India took the advice of the Pillai committee and the Study Group of Banking and after due deliberation evolved a uniform pattern of conditions for the transferred employees keeping in view the conditions of service of the employees prevailing in the majority of the banking Companies which were nationalised "in so far as the employees recruited after nationalisation were concerned the Government applied the rules generally applicable to all its employees in other spheres of government service". 8. IN that decision in the case of Central Bank of India the Supreme court also referred to its earlier decision in the Life Insurance Corporation of India v. S. S. Srivastava, A.I.R. 1987 SC 1527 where detailed reasons were given justifying the existence of real fixing different ages of retirement for different classes of employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India in the circumstances existing there and the Supreme Court observed that those reasons were equally applicable to the case of Central Bank of India too. Finally, the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India (supra) recorded the view that the classification of the employees into two categories, i.e. , those falling under rules 1 and 2 of the Rules for Age of Retirement and those falling under rule 3 thereof satisfied the tests of a valid classification laid down under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and there was no ground to declare Rule 3 of the Rules for Age of Retirement as unconstitutional. In our present case also the Allahabad Bank by its impugned circular virtually preserved the benefit of retirement of the officer employees appointed/promoted before the 19th July, 1969 so that they could, if so considered necessary in the interest of the bank, get extension of service beyond 58 years and upto the age of 60 years which benefit of such extension was not made available to the employee officers recruited on of after 19th July, 1969. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme court in the case of Central Bank of India (supra) such classification is constitutionally valid for reasons stated in the said decision as well as in the decision of the Life Insurance Corporation of India v. S. S. Srivastava (supra. The learned Advocate for the petitioners made a vain attempt to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India on the ground that in the case of employee officers of the Central bank of India the superannuation age before nationalisation was 60 years, but in the case of Allahabad Bank it was 58 years with the benefit of extension upto 60 years. In my opinion this factual difference is absolutely of no consequence in the matter of applicability of the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioners that after the nationalisation initially the allahabad Bank fixed the age of superannuation of all categories of employee officers as 50 years which was not so in the case of the Central bank of India. This fact also clearly is of no moment in the present context. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioners that after the nationalisation initially the allahabad Bank fixed the age of superannuation of all categories of employee officers as 50 years which was not so in the case of the Central bank of India. This fact also clearly is of no moment in the present context. Even if after nationalisation the Allahabad Bank had fixed the age of superannuation for all categories of officers as 58 years with no scope of extension yet it was subsequently changed by giving the benefit of extension upto 60 years to those officers falling in the category that was entitled to such benefit of nationalisation and this was done, according to the petitioners themselves, in view of the resentment and the representations of the employees of the bank. Be that as it may the basic fact remains that like the Central Bank of India, the Allahabad Bank also, by its impugned circular, provided different ages for the different categories of employees mentioned therein and such classification was made and maintained for the same historical reasons for which the Central Bank of India also had to take recourse to similar classification and such classification, as we have seen, was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India and its ratio squarely apply to our present case and there is absolutely no scope to hold otherwise. The learned advocate for the petitioner had referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in D. S. Nakara v. Union of India A. I. R. 1983 SC, 130 and to certain other decisions where the classification was not sustained by the Court. It is needless to mention that in each of such cases the classification was tested in the background of its own facts and therefore they do not necessarily apply to our present case where the facts are directly amenable to the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Central Bank of India (supra. 9. It is needless to mention that in each of such cases the classification was tested in the background of its own facts and therefore they do not necessarily apply to our present case where the facts are directly amenable to the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Central Bank of India (supra. 9. ALTHOUGH no such plea was taken in the writ petition itself, at the time of argument, however, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the writ petitioner No. 4 was originally an employee of the United industrial Bank Ltd. which bank, was amalgamated with the Allahabad bank by notification dated 30th October, 1989 issued by the Government of India and the service conditions in the erstwhile United Industrial Bank of India Ltd. prescribed the age of superannuation of the officers as 60 years and they becoming officers of the Allahabad Bank on amalgamation the benefit of extension beyond the age of 58 years should be extended to them also, which was not being done. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner no. 4 was appointed in the United Industrial Bank after the 19th July, 1969. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the benefit of extension upto the age of 60 years is not available to the petitioner No. 4 and to the erstwhile officers of the United Industrial Bank of India Ltd. who on amalgamation are serving in the Allahabad Bank. On this point the respondent bank authorities are also armed with the decision of the Supreme Court in 'the Chairman, Canara Bank v. M.S. Jasra, A.I.R. 1992 SC 1341. In that case also the writ petitioner joined lakshmi Commercial Bank in March 1983 as Assistant General Manager. On this point the respondent bank authorities are also armed with the decision of the Supreme Court in 'the Chairman, Canara Bank v. M.S. Jasra, A.I.R. 1992 SC 1341. In that case also the writ petitioner joined lakshmi Commercial Bank in March 1983 as Assistant General Manager. There also the Central Government, as here, after considering the application made by the Reserve Bank of India under Sub-section (1) of section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 made an order of moratorium under Sub-section (2) thereof in respect of Lakshmi commercial Bank on April 27, 1985 and thereafter the Reserve Bank of india prepared a scheme for amalgamation of the said bank with the canara Bank on August 23, 1985 under Sub-section (40 Section 45 which was approved by the Central Government on August 24, 1985 and in consequence, the services of the employees of the Lakshmi Commercial bank were continued on amalgamation in the Canara Bank and the writ petitioner was fitted in the post of Divisional Manager in the Canara Bank. The writ petitioner asserted, inter alia, that he was entitled to continue in the service of the Canara Bank will he attained the age of 60 years which was the age of superannuation for hum in the Lakshmi Commercial Bank instead of 58 years which was the age of superannuation in Canara Bank. In our present case also it is the contention of the writ petitioner no. 4 that as an employee of the United Industrial Bank before amalgamation he was entitled to retire at 60 years of age, but now he is being asked by the allahabad Bank to retire at 58 years. In our present case also it is the contention of the writ petitioner no. 4 that as an employee of the United Industrial Bank before amalgamation he was entitled to retire at 60 years of age, but now he is being asked by the allahabad Bank to retire at 58 years. In the case of Canara Bank as well as in our present case also there is a clause in the amalgamation scheme, being clause (12) in the former and clause (11) in the latter, which provides, inter alia, that the transferee bank shall, on the expiry of a period not longer than three years from the date on which the scheme is sanctioned, pay or grant to the employees of the transferer bank the same remuneration and the same terms and conditions of service as are applicable to the employees of corresponding rank or status of the transferee bank subject to the qualifications and experience of the said employees of the transferer bank being the same as or equivalent to those of such other employees of the transferee bank. It was contended in the case of the Canara Bank that the bank had no authority to take away the vested right of the transferred employees;, on amalgamation and to reduce the age of superannuation. Such contention did not however find favour with the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in paragraph 13 of the said decision in the case of Canara bank (supra) observed thus. "13. It follows that respondent no. 1 could not, therefore, claim to be governed by the age of superannuation of 60 years in the Lakshmi commercial Bank. When, his services were continued on amalgamation of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank with the Canara Bank he became an employee of the Canara Bank and was, therefore, entitled only to the right given by proviso (ii) to cl. (i) of Sub-section (5) of section 45 which entitled him to the same terms and conditions of service as employees of the corresponding rank or status of the canara Bank. Age of superannuation of the employees in Canara Bank being 58 years only, respondent No. 1 could not claim to retire at 60 years. The High Court misconstrued cl. (i) and proviso (ii) there under of sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act and Cls. 10 and 12 of the amalgamation scheme to take the contrary view. Age of superannuation of the employees in Canara Bank being 58 years only, respondent No. 1 could not claim to retire at 60 years. The High Court misconstrued cl. (i) and proviso (ii) there under of sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act and Cls. 10 and 12 of the amalgamation scheme to take the contrary view. The impugned judgment of the High Court has, therefore, to be set aside resulting in dismissal of the writ petition of respondent no. 1 filed in the High Court". 10. THE said decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank is squarely applicable to this case also so far as transferred employee officers of the erstwhile United Commercial Bank who are new serving in the allahabad Bank after amalgamation are concerned. It may be mentioned here that while on nationalisation the transferred employees of the transferor banks had not been given any such option, the employees of the United Industrial Bank Ltd. on amalgation were given an option in the first proviso to cl. (10) of the scheme of amalgamation as notified by the Government of India by notification dated the 30th October, 1989 (annexure- x to the supplementary affidavit) that the employees of the transferor bank who had, by notice in writing given to the transferor or transferee bank at any time before the expiry of one month next following the date which the scheme has been sanctioned by the Central Government intimate their intention of not becoming employees of the transferee bank, shall be entitled to get payment of such compensation, if any, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 and such pension, gratuity, provident fund and other retirement benefits as may be ordinarily admissible under the rules of authorisations of the transferor bank immediately before the close of business on 10th June, 1989. Therefore, the employees of the United Industrial Bank ltd. , on amalgamation, were given an option not to continue in service after amalgamation and were given the option to obtain proper compensation under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such type of benefit or option was however not assailable to the employees of the transferor banks on nationalisation and therefore the erstwhile employees of the amalgamated bank do not stand on the same footing as the erstwhile employees of the nationalised banks. Such type of benefit or option was however not assailable to the employees of the transferor banks on nationalisation and therefore the erstwhile employees of the amalgamated bank do not stand on the same footing as the erstwhile employees of the nationalised banks. The employees of the United industrial Bank who did not choose to exercise the option to discontinue service and obtain payment of compensation under the Industrial Disputes act on amalgamation of the United Industrial Bank with the Allahabad bank can not now complain that the transferee bank can not alter their age of retirement which power of the transferee bank, as we have seen, has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank. In view of the said Supreme Court decision in the case of Canara Bank I must hold they the contention of the respondent no. 4 that the age of superannuation as was applicable to him while in service in the United Industrial Bank can not be altered by the Allahabad Bank is not sustainable. In the result the writ application is liable to fall. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. All interim orders, if any, stand vacated. There will however be no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed appeal allowed.