In this writ petition(C) No. 1598 of 2000, the petitioner is claiming that consequent upon the death of her husband, O.Kullachandra Singh, who was an employee of United Bank of India( for short, “UBI”) on 14.4.1990 , she was entitled to family pension from 15.4.1990 onwards during her life time under the provisions of the United Bank of India Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1993 ( for short, “the Regulations, 1993”) and prays for issuing an appropriate order or rule in this connection for the ends of justice. 2. I have heard Mr.R.K.Nokulsana, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L.Dineshwor, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.N. Ibotombi, learned counsel for the respondents. The materials before the court are also perused. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner's husband was a regular employee of the UBI. He was first appointed as probationary godown clerk under order being Ref. No. PD/CON/15632 dated 11.7.1970 of the Manager, Personnel Department, UBI and his service as godown clerk was confirmed w.e.f. 20.1.1971 under order No. PD/TL/CON/3079 dated 6.2.1971 of the Manager, Personnel Department, UBI. He was promoted and posted as Accountant at Churachandpur Branch and he worked there as Branch Manager for some years. It is ascertained that the said husband of the petitioner died on 14.4.1990. There is dispute regarding the fact if the petitioner's husband was dismissed from his service on 31.3.1990 or if he died while in service. However, it has been brought to the notice of this court by the respondents that this court, vide order passed on 14.5.2001 in Civil Rule No. 526/1996, which was filed by the son of the present petitioner for appointment under die-in-harness scheme consequent upon the death of his father, O.Kullachandra Singh, held to the effect that the husband of the present petitioner was not in service when he died on 14.4.1990. The above said finding of this court has not been challenged and as such, it is to be accepted as correct. Thus, the petitioner's husband was no longer in service when he died on 14.4.1990. 4. Now, the point to be determined is, in the facts and circumstances, if the petitioner is entitled to family pension under the provisions of the said Regulations, 1993 consequent upon the death of her husband , O.Kullachandra Singh. 5. Chapter 5 of the said Regulations, 1993 deals with family pension. 4. Now, the point to be determined is, in the facts and circumstances, if the petitioner is entitled to family pension under the provisions of the said Regulations, 1993 consequent upon the death of her husband , O.Kullachandra Singh. 5. Chapter 5 of the said Regulations, 1993 deals with family pension. Regulation 22(i) is as follows:- “22 (i) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in these Regulations, where an employee dies:- (a) After completion of one year of continuous Service; or (b) before completion of one year of continuous service provided the deceased employee concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the bank's Medical Officer and declared fit for employment; or (c) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance, the family of the deceased shall be entitled to family pension.” 6. There is no dispute that the provisions of Regulation 22(i) (a) and (b) will not cover the case of the petitioner. There is, however, dispute regarding the question if the provisions of Regulation 22(i) (c) will cover the case of the petitioner or not. The petitioner's husband , O.Kullachandra Singh, did not cease from being in bank's service on attaining the age of superannuation, by way of pre-mature retirement before the age of superannuation as per provisions of service rules, etc. or by way of voluntary retirment before the age of superannuation. He ceased from being in the bank's service as a result of dismissal from service. There is nothing to show that the said dismissal was without prejudice to the entitlement for superannuation benefits as per provisions of service regulations/rules/settlement. 7. From the provisions of Regulation 22(i) sub-clause(c), it is clear that even assuming that the said dismissal of the said O.Kullachandra Singh is a retirement from service as per provisions of Regulation 2(j) (iv), the family of the said O.Kullachandra Singh will be entitled to family pension consequent upon his death only when he was in receipt of a pension or compassionate allowance on the date of his death. The said Regulation,1993 came into force w.e.f. 1st November, 1993. As per Regulation 3, the regulations shall apply to:- “ These Regulations shall apply to : (i) Employees who join service of the Bank on or after 1st November,1993. The said Regulation,1993 came into force w.e.f. 1st November, 1993. As per Regulation 3, the regulations shall apply to:- “ These Regulations shall apply to : (i) Employees who join service of the Bank on or after 1st November,1993. (ii) Employees in service of the Bank as on 31st October,1993 and who exercise an option in writing in response to bank's notice to this effect to become members of the pension scheme and to cease to be members of the contributory provident fund scheme with effect from 1st November,1993 and irrevocably authorize the bank or the trustees of the contributory provident fund to transfer the entire contribution of the bank along with entire interest accrued thereon to the credit of pension fund to be created for this purpose. (iii) By way of special special dispensation to employees who retired on or after 1st January,1986 but before 1st November,1993 provided that such retired employees apply for it on the format prescribed by the Bank and refund by the date decided by the bank, the bank's entire contribution to the provident fund including interest received with further simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of withdrawal of the provident fund amount till the date of refund. (iv) An employee who is recruited on or after 1st Novermber,1993 at the age of thirty-five years and above may, within a period of three months from the date of his appointment, elect to forgo his right to pension whereupon he shall be eligible to subscribe to contributory Provident Fund.” 8. In our present case, it is ascertained that the petitioner's husband joined service of the bank many years before 1st November,1993. He was no longer in service on 31st October,1993. There cannot be any doubt that provisions of Regulation 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(iv) will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner's husband. In order to determine if the case of the petitioner's husband will be covered by provision of Regulation 3(iii). He was no longer in service on 31st October,1993. There cannot be any doubt that provisions of Regulation 3(i), 3(ii) and 3(iv) will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner's husband. In order to determine if the case of the petitioner's husband will be covered by provision of Regulation 3(iii). The following facts are required to be ascertained :- If he retired on or after 1st January,1986, but before 1st November,1993 and if yes, if he applied for it on the format prescribed by the Bank and if he refunded by the date decided by the bank, the bank's entire contribution to the provident fund including interest received with further simple interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of withdrawal of the provident fund amount till the date of refund. As per definition of the term “retirement” given in clause (iv) of the Regulation 2(j), 'retirement' means cessation from bank's service under compulsory retirement or dismissal/termination of service, as the case may, without prejudice to the entitlement for superannuation benefits as per provisions of the service regulations/rules/settlements. In the case of the petitioner's husband , there is nothing to show that the said dismissal of service was without prejudice to the entitlement for superannuation benefits as per provision of the United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1976/1982/ the Bank Officers Service Rules applicable to officers of private sector Banks/relevant settlement. At the same time, since the petitioner's husband died on 14.4.1990, he could not have applied on the prescribed format and made refund as per terms of Regulation 3(iii). Since the conditions for application of provision of Regulation 3(iii) are not satisfied , the said provision will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner's husband. 9. Further, as per Regulation 10, dismissal, termination of or resignation by an employee from the service except where the service regulations/rules/settlement do not disentitled such employee from receiving superannuation benefits shall forfeit the entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pension payment. In respect of said dismissal of the service of the petitioner's husband , there is nothing to show that the relevant service regulations/rules/settlement do not disentitle him from receiving superannuation benefits. 10. Regulation 19 provides for compassionate allowance. In respect of said dismissal of the service of the petitioner's husband , there is nothing to show that the relevant service regulations/rules/settlement do not disentitle him from receiving superannuation benefits. 10. Regulation 19 provides for compassionate allowance. Regulation 19(i) says :- “(i) An employee of the bank who is dismissed or terminated from service shall forfeit his pension except as provided for in Regulation 2(j)(iv) of these Regulations. Provided that the authority higher than the authority competent to dismiss or terminate an employee from service may, if the case is deserving of special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-third (2/3) of pension which would have been otherwise admissible to him.” 11. In the case of the petitioner's husband, nothing has been produced to show that his dismissal was without prejudice to the entitlement for superannuation benefits as per provisions of service regulations/rules/settlement. There is also nothing to show that the concerned higher authority has sanctioned compassionate allowance in favour of the petitioner's husband in exercise of the power given in Regulation 19. 12. In the light of the above consideration, it is ascertained that the concerned employee, i.e., the husband of the petitioner was not in receipt of a pension or compassionate allowance on the date of his death. Accordingly, the petitioner shall not be entitled as a matter of course to family pension consequent upon the death of her husband, O.Kullachandra Singh, under the provisions of Regulation 22(i) of the said Regulation,1993. In the facts and circumstances, this court is not in a position to issue any rule or direction to the concerned authority for payment of the family pension to the petitioner. However, under the proviso to Regulation 19(i) of the said Regulation,1993, the concerned authority has the power, if the case of the petitioner's husband is deserving of special consideration, to sanction the compassionate allowance. In this connection, the petitioner will have to make a representation to the concerned authority, if she is so advised and if the petitioner thinks that her husband's case is one deserving special consideration. If any such representation is made, the concerned authority will have to dispose it of in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. 13. This writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and directions.