JUDGMENT (Per A.B. Chaudhari, J.) : By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents, i.e. Punjab National Bank (`Bank' for short) in the form of orders dated 10.8.2000, 18.10.2000 and 07.12.2000 refusing to grant him pensionary benefits under Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (`P.N.B. Regulations' for short) on the ground that he was not entitled to the same, he having resigned from the service of the bank on 31.8.1989. The petitioner has further claimed grant of relief of pensionary benefits under the said P.N.B. Regulations along with interest thereon @ 18% per annum. 2. Factual matrix (a) The petitioner states that he was appointed as armed guard with the Bank on 10.11.1954. He completed his age of 57 years on 28.8.1987. Prior to that, i.e. on 22.4.1987, the respondent-Bank informed the petitioner that the petitioner having completed the age of 57 years on 28.8.1987, and that he was due for first extension in service with effect from 29.8.1987 as such he was called upon to apply or submit extension proposal in standard proforma prescribed by the bank. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for first extension. It was granted to him for a period of one year effective from 29.8.1987. That is how he continued to work. (b) The respondent/bank after the expiry of the first extension again granted second extension to the petitioner with effect from 29.8.1988 till 28.8.1989 in which it was also mentioned that a proposal for third extension to the petitioner should be submitted well within time. The second extension was to last up to 28.8.1989. The petitioner on 19.6.1989 applied to the bank and stated therein that upon completion of second extension, due to his domestic family problems, he need not be considered for further extension as he did not desire to continue in service any more and that he should be made to retire from service with effect from 28.8.1989. The petitioner submits that on 31.8.1989 the order of retirement of the petitioner from the service was issued by the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Amravati. A certificate was issued on 16.7.1994 by the bank that the petitioner retired from the service of the bank. The petitioner submits that on 31.8.1989 the order of retirement of the petitioner from the service was issued by the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Amravati. A certificate was issued on 16.7.1994 by the bank that the petitioner retired from the service of the bank. (c) The Board of Directors of the Bank, some time in the year 1995, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970), after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government enacted Punjab National Bank (Employees'), Pension Regulations 1995. By clause 3(1)(a) the Regulations were made applicable to the employees who were in the service of the Bank on or after the 1st day of January, 1986 but had retired before the 1st day of November, 1993. (d) It appears that after circulation of these Pension Regulations the petitioner opted for the aforesaid pension scheme and the respondent/bank having received the same from the petitioner, issued him a letter dated 23.11.1995 mentioning therein his date of retirement as 31.8.1987. The letter further reads as under : “Ref.: Your option for pension scheme. We are in receipt of your option for pension. As per pension scheme, you have to refund Bank's contribution of Provident Fund including interest paid to you at the time of retirement along with interest @ 6% p.a.” It appears that the petitioner was directed to refund Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner accordingly deposited Rs.50,000/- with the Bank. (e) The communication dated 23.11.1995 reveals that as per the calculation made by the bank, an amount of Rs.30,306/- was contributed by the petitioner towards the provident fund as his contribution, whereas Rs.30,306/- was contributed by the employer/Bank as their contribution towards provident fund of the petitioner. The interest thereon @ 6% per annum from 01.10.1989 to 28.11.1995 was calculated to Rs.11,182. That is how, petitioner was supposed to refund total sum of Rs.41,488/- pursuant to the letter dated 23.11.1995 issued by the Bank to the petitioner. The petitioner admittedly deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Bank in view of the said demand. Thereafter, again a communication dated 11.3.1996 was issued to the petitioner in which it was stated that his date of retirement was 31.8.1989. The petitioner admittedly deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Bank in view of the said demand. Thereafter, again a communication dated 11.3.1996 was issued to the petitioner in which it was stated that his date of retirement was 31.8.1989. By this communication, the petitioner was asked to contact the Branch/office from where he retired so as to enable the Branch/office to complete the formalities and take steps to sanction his pension. (f) It appears that in pursuance to the communication dated 11.3.1996 the petitioner approached the Branch/office and he was told that he was not entitled to benefits of pension scheme as he had resigned and not retired from service. (g) The petitioner, therefore, made a representation on 23.11.1996 to the bank stating therein that he had rendered 35 years of service in the Bank and looking to the pension scheme and he having retired after 01.01.1986, i.e. 31.08.1989, he was entitled to pension. The petitioner had made a specific grievance vide letter dated 25.9.2000 that the amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited by him was wrongly deposited in the fixed deposit by the Bank. However, there was no response to this specific grievance made by the petitioner. (h) It appears that petitioner thereafter issued a registered notice through his counsel on 04.11.1997 making demand for pension. The said notice was replied by the bank on 04.01.1998 in which the Bank took a peculiar stand that he had retired from service by way of voluntary retirement and, therefore, he was not entitled to pensionary benefits. (i) The Bank again changed their their stand and issued two communications dated 10.08.2000 and 18.10.2000 respectively (Annexures XI & XIV) wherein a stand was taken that since the petitioner has resigned from service on 31.08.1989, he was not entitled to the pensionary benefits. It appears that the Bank refunded the said amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner having taken a stand that the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits under the Pension Regulations. The petitioner after the aforesaid entire correspondence approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs claimed in the petition. 3. On being noticed, respondents appeared and have filed their reply. They have taken a stand that the age of retirement of the petitioner was 60 years. The petitioner after the aforesaid entire correspondence approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs claimed in the petition. 3. On being noticed, respondents appeared and have filed their reply. They have taken a stand that the age of retirement of the petitioner was 60 years. Since the petitioner was not in the service of the Bank after attaining the age of 59 years, as such, the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits. According to the Bank, case of the petitioner is of resignation and not that of retirement. The respondent/Bank never contested in their reply the correspondence made by the petitioner and that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by him by way of refund of Bank's contribution of Provident fund with interest thereon for the purposes of becoming eligible for pension. The respondent/Bank never took a stand that they refused to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner for want of deposit of the amount of refund with interest. The defence taken is that the case of the petitioner is that of resignation or voluntary retirement but not retirement from service after completing age of retirement provided under the service rules. 4. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner : Mr.P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner rendered about 34 years of service with the respondent/bank as armed guard. That he had never resigned. He then submitted that perusal of the letter dated 19.6.1989 issued by the petitioner to the Bank no where reveals that the petitioner wanted to resign from the service. On the contrary, the petitioner has emphatically said in the said letter reading as under : “ .... I respectfully submit that because of my domestic and family problems I do not want to serve any more. Hence, on completion of second extension I want to retire from the service. “ (Emphasis supplied) 5. Mr.Patil then went on to submit that the aforesaid letter issued by the petitioner alternatively, does not even remotely suggest that the petitioner wanted to resign from the service nor any expression of voluntary retirement from service was used. 6. Hence, on completion of second extension I want to retire from the service. “ (Emphasis supplied) 5. Mr.Patil then went on to submit that the aforesaid letter issued by the petitioner alternatively, does not even remotely suggest that the petitioner wanted to resign from the service nor any expression of voluntary retirement from service was used. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner then drew our attention to the letters dated 23.11.1995 and 11.3.1996 where the Bank described the status of the petitioner as that of a retired employee inasmuch as in both these letters the date of retirement was specifically mentioned. That, in the letter dated 23.11.1995 not only there is a specific mention about receipt of option forms from the petitioner by the Bank but details of the amount to be refunded with interest to the tune of Rs.30,306/- towards bank's contribution of provident fund and Rs.11,182/- towards interest @ 6% per annum from 01.10.1989 to 28.11.1995 were given. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent/bank ever made any complaint to the petitioner that there was a failure on his part to deposit the amount of refund as demanded by the Bank so as to extend pensionary benefits to him within time. In his submission, the amount was deposited with the bank and the bank also treated the said amount by way of refund with interest for processing the pension case of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel then went on to argue that in the light of the Pension Regulations and considering the date of retirement of the petitioner, namely; 31.08.1989, the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits under the Pension Regulations which were made applicable for the employees who were in service on or after 01.11.1986 but had retired prior to 01.11.1993. Insofar as the petitioner'sstand of voluntary retirement is concerned, the learned counsel argued that even if the petitioner is treated as retired voluntarily, the voluntary retirement is also retirement in the eye of law. He relied upon the decision in the case of Bank of India v. Indu Rajagopalan and ors. - 2000-I-LLJ 223. 8. Submissions of Respondents Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned counsel, for respondent no.3, submitted that the letter dated 19.6.1989 issued by the petitioner was an act of resignation from service with effect from 28.08.1989. Alternatively, he submits that it can be treated as a case of voluntary retirement. - 2000-I-LLJ 223. 8. Submissions of Respondents Shri J.L.Bhoot, learned counsel, for respondent no.3, submitted that the letter dated 19.6.1989 issued by the petitioner was an act of resignation from service with effect from 28.08.1989. Alternatively, he submits that it can be treated as a case of voluntary retirement. He further submits that severance of master and servant relationship in the facts of the case does not amount to either retirement or voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 29 of the P.N.B. Regulations and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to pension under the said Regulations. 9. The learned counsel for the Bank relied upon the decision in the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon – [2004 (100) FLR 441] (SC) in support of his contention that an employee resigning from service forfeits his service and, as such, petitioner became disentitled to claim pension. He relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Jai Singh B. Chauhan v. Punjab National Bank & ors. - JT 2005 (6) 272. in support of his submission. Similarly, he relied on the decision rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in various writ applications between Shri H.Sakharama Shetty & ors. v. Syndicate Bank & ors. 10. Consideration Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, we find from reading of the letter dated 19.6.1989 submitted by the petitioner to the bank that it can neither be held to be a resignation nor proposal or application for voluntary retirement. The petitioner in crystal clear language stated that on completion of second extended term he wanted to retire from service. We, therefore, hold that the said letter dated 19.6.1989 is neither a resignation nor proposal/application for voluntary retirement but is a request not to grant him third extension in service but to allow him to retire from service. The certificate issued by the bank dated 16.7.1994 clearly states that the petitioner stood retired from the service of the bank. We are surprised to see that the bank has taken inconsistent stand. In its reply-notice dated 04.1.1988 the bank has asserted that the petitioner has retired voluntarily. There is absolutely no mention about the alleged resignation. As against this, in the communication at Annexures-XI and XIV the Bank has stated that the petitioner had resigned from service. We are surprised to see that the bank has taken inconsistent stand. In its reply-notice dated 04.1.1988 the bank has asserted that the petitioner has retired voluntarily. There is absolutely no mention about the alleged resignation. As against this, in the communication at Annexures-XI and XIV the Bank has stated that the petitioner had resigned from service. In the reply to the writ petition, the stand taken by the respondent/Bank is that the petitioner had voluntarily retired from service. 11. At the outset, we have indicated that the communication dated 19.6.1989 issued by the petitioner nowhere would lead anybody to think that the same is an act of resignation and, therefore, the theory of resignation propounded by the respondent/bank is rejected. Insofar as the theory of voluntary retirement advanced by the respondent/bank is concerned, it does not hold water for reasons more than one. In the first place, the order of retirement or the certificate dated 16.7.1994 issued by the respondent/bank nowhere states that the petitioner stood retired voluntarily. Secondly, the petitioner himself nowhere said in his communication dated 19.6.1989 that he wanted to retire voluntarily. 12. It is not the case of the respondent/bank that the petitioner had at any point of time applied for grant of voluntary retirement from service by giving notice of not less than three months to the appointing authority and that the appointing authority having applied its mind had accepted any such notice of voluntary retirement and allowed him to retire voluntarily. The respondent/bank is, therefore, not justified in stating that the petitioner has voluntarily retired from service. 13. It will be useful to extract the definition of retirement as defined in clause 2(y), which reads thus : “reitrement” means cessation from Bank's service,- (a) on attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlements; (b) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in regulations 29 of these regulations; (c) on premature retirement by the bank before attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlement;” What we find in the instant case is that the normal age of superannuation of the petitioner was 60 years. After completion of the age of 57 years, the bank granted him two extensions for a period of two years and when the occasion came for grant of third extension the petitioner stated that he wanted to retire and did not want to accept the third extension. Pursuant to that the respondent/bank issued him retirement order retiring him with effect from 31.08.1989. In the above factual background, we therefore, find that clause 32 of the Pension Regulations, which is reproduced below, would be applicable to the case of the petitioner. “32. Premature retirement pension Premature retirement pension may be granted to an employee who,- (a) has rendered minimum ten years of service: (b) retires from service on account of orders of the Bank to retire prematurely in the Public interest or for any other reason specified in service regulations or settlement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.” On reading the definition of the term retirement in clause 2(y)(c) together with clause 32 of the Pension Regulations, we find that the petitioner was retired prematurely by the respondent/bank before attaining the age of superannuation and was, therefore, entitled to premature retirement pension. Insofar as the decision of the apex Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon – [2004(100) FLR 441] (SC), supra, is concerned, the same was a case of forfeiture of service of employee as he had resigned. We have held that the petitioner never resigned from service. Similarly, reliance placed by the learned counsel for respondents on the decisions, viz. M.R.Kulkarni & ors. v. Bank of Maharashtra & ors. reported in 2004 II CCR 59 and in the case of Durga Prasad Mishra and UCO Bank & ors. reported in 1998(80) FLR 911, is misplaced as in those cases it was found that the employees had taken voluntary retirement and, as such, became disentitled to pension. In Jai Singh B. Chauhan v. Punjab National Bank & ors. reported in 2005(6) SCC 262 , the apex Court as a fact found that the employee had not at all exercised the option in the pension scheme, which is not the case in hand. 14. In Jai Singh B. Chauhan v. Punjab National Bank & ors. reported in 2005(6) SCC 262 , the apex Court as a fact found that the employee had not at all exercised the option in the pension scheme, which is not the case in hand. 14. Conclusion In view of the above findings we hold that the petitioner having been retired from service by the respondent/bank with effect from 31.08.1989 became entitled to premature retirement pension in terms of clause 32 of Pension Regulations. We, therefore, quash and set aside the orders/communications dated 10.08.2000 (Annexure-XI), 18.10.2000 (Annexure-XIV) and 07.12.2000 (Annexure-XVI) issued by the respondent/bank refusing to grant pension to the petitioner under the Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 being illegal. We further direct the respondents/bank to make applicable the pensionary benefits to the petitioner, as observed herein before, after the date of his retirement, i.e. 31.08.1989 and after finalising the pension case of the petitioner to make the payment of arrears of pension to the petitioner with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon within a period of four months from today. Needles to mention that the respondent/bank is entitled to adjust the amount of refund which was required to be deposited by the petitioner in accordance with the Pension Regulations, 1995. Rule is made absolute in above terms with costs quantified at Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the respondent/bank to the petitioner within a period of four months from today.