ORDER : R.M. Lodha, J. Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, learned counsel appearing for the United Bank of India, (the appellant in Civil Appeal No. of 2006) and the Punjab National Bank (the appellant in Civil Appeal No. of 2010), submitted that under the (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995,(which are identical for the two banks) in case of compulsory retirement, as a measure of punishment, the concerned employee would be entitled to pension only if he was awarded the punishment after November 1, 1993. But an employee who was given the punishment of compulsory retirement prior to that date will not be entitled to pension even though it might have taken place after January 1, 1986, the cut off date for employees retiring from the bank's service on superannuation or in other ways than by way of punishment. 2. Mr. Deora, painstakingly built up the argument referring to various provisions of the Pension Regulations, including regulation 2(k), 2(l), 2(x), 2(y), regulation and regulations to 33. He also tried to support his contention on the basis of a number of decisions of this Court [(i) Krishan Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1782 : (1990) 4 SCC 207 : 1991-I-LLJ-191; (ii) All India Reserve Bank of India Retired Officers Association and Others v. Union of India and Another, 1992 SC 767 : (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 664; (iii) State of West Bengal and Others v. Ratan Behari Dey and Others, (1993) SCC 62 : 1993-II-LLJ-741; (iv) Union of India v. P.N. Menon and Others, AIR 1994 SC 2221 : (1994) SCC 68 : 1995-II-LLJ-307; (v) V. Kasturi v. M.D., State Bank of India, Bombay and Another, AIR 1999 SC 81 : (1998) 8 SCC 30 : 1999-I-LLJ-238 and (vi) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy and Others, AIR 1999 SC 1768 : (1999) SCC 414 : 1999-II-LLJ-783. 3. In the facts of the case, however, we see no reason to decide the issue raised by Mr. Deora. The facts and circumstances that dissuade us from examining the question raised by Mr. Deora on merits are these: the concerned employee - respondent no. in Civil Appeal No. of 2729/2006, was initially dismissed from service on certain charges. His punishment was, however, modified by the departmental reviewing authority from dismissal to compulsory retirement. Deora. The facts and circumstances that dissuade us from examining the question raised by Mr. Deora on merits are these: the concerned employee - respondent no. in Civil Appeal No. of 2729/2006, was initially dismissed from service on certain charges. His punishment was, however, modified by the departmental reviewing authority from dismissal to compulsory retirement. The matter of his removal from service came to the Calcutta High Court in C.O. No.9045(W)/1987 of which was disposed of by a single Judge of the court by order dated February 6, 1990. From that order it appears that the High Court did not formally interfere with the punishment of compulsory retirement and directed that the respondent should be treated as compulsorily retired from service with effect from September 30, 1988. But in regard to payment of terminal dues, it brought the case of the respondent completely at par with retirement with no element of punishment. The order of High Court has since attained finality. 4. It is further to be noted that before the Regulations were notified by publication in the official gazette, as required in terms of Section of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, a set of draft regulations were framed in 1993. The draft regulations, though not notified, were adopted by the United Bank under the heading United Bank of India Employees' (Pension) Regulations, 1993. In the draft regulations, 1993, "retirement" was defined under regulation 2(j) and clause (iv) provided as follows: "2(j) 'Retirement' means cessation from bank's service, under any of the following circumstances: (i) on attaining the age of superannuation; (ii) premature retirement before the age of superannuation as per the provisions of the Service Regulations/Service Rules: (iii) voluntary retirement, before the age of superannuation, as per the provisions contained in these Regulations; (iv) compulsory retirement or dismissal/ termination of service, as the case may be, without prejudice to the entitlement for superannuation benefits as per provisions of the Service Regulations/Service Rules/ Settlements." 5. The draft Regulation of also prescribed a format in which option for the pension scheme was to be exercised. In the Regulations that finally came as the statutory instrument after being notified in the official gazette, clause (iv) was deleted from the definition of "retirement". Be that as it may, following the draft Regulations, 1993, a public advertisement was issued by the Indian Banks' Association on March 20, 1994. In the Regulations that finally came as the statutory instrument after being notified in the official gazette, clause (iv) was deleted from the definition of "retirement". Be that as it may, following the draft Regulations, 1993, a public advertisement was issued by the Indian Banks' Association on March 20, 1994. In this advertisement, retired employees were invited to exercise their option for the pension scheme in lieu of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme which was then in force. The last date for exercise of the option was July 31, 1994. 6. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Indian Banks' Association, respondent no. sent his option in the prescribed format as provided under the Regulations. He was called for medical examination but before he was granted pension, the Regulations came into force and his option for pension was rejected by the Bank on the ground that his compulsory retirement from service had taken place before November 1, 1993. 7. He challenged the denial of the option given by him by the Bank before the Calcutta High Court. In course of the proceedings before the Calcutta High Court, it came to light that insofar as the United Bank is concerned, the respondent was the only employee who had been compulsorily retired from service after 1.1.1986 and prior to 1.11.1993. Thus, the case of the respondent is a single case so far as the United Bank of India is concerned. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter in exercise of the Court's jurisdiction under Article of the Constitution. Civil Appeal No. of 4677/2010 So far as the case of Punjab National Bank is concerned, the only difference is that this Bank did not adopt the Regulations and the number of employees who were awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement between the period 1.1.1986 and 1.11.1993 is slightly more. According to Mr. Deora, apart from the case before us, there are two other pending cases in other courts. In any event, the number of such employees would not be more than . We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the case of Punjab National Bank either. These two civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.