1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 12.03.2013, issued by respondent No. 4 and further seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him pension under the “One more option to Pension” scheme. 2. Facts relevant for adjudication of the present case may be stated briefly at the outset. 3. Petitioner was serving as Branch Manager in the Bharalumukh Branch of United Bank of India (for short, the 'bank', hereafter). On 16.02.1996, petitioner was placed under suspension. A chargesheet was served on the petitioner containing 4 (four) charges. Basic allegation against the petitioner was that he had exposed the bank to financial risk by permitting a number of customers access to the bank's funds without following proper procedure. Petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges brought against him. However, a departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner on completion of which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding all the charges brought against the petitioner to have been proved. On a consideration of the enquiry report and the response of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 12.10.1999, imposing the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner. 4. Petitioner filed WP(C) No. 6350 of 2001 before this Court challenging the legality and validity of the penalty imposed. The writ Court, however, dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2006. 5. In the meanwhile, petitioner had attained the age of superannuation in the year 2002. 6. Thereafter, petitioner filed appeal which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 113 of 2006. By judgment and order dated 30.01.2009, the writ appeal was partly allowed by the appellate Court. Punishment of removal from service was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the respondents to take a fresh decision in the matter in the light of the principles of law and observations contained in the said judgment. It was further ordered that following such denovo decision, all consequential reliefs as may reasonably flow to the petitioner including protection of pension should be afforded to him. 7. It was further ordered that following such denovo decision, all consequential reliefs as may reasonably flow to the petitioner including protection of pension should be afforded to him. 7. Following the judgment of the Division Bench as above, the disciplinary authority passed a fresh order dated 24.12.2009, imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner w.e.f. 12.10.1999 with superannuation benefits, i.e., pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as may be due in substitution of the penalty of removal from service imposed earlier. 8. Petitioner again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 1531 of 2011, assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 24.12.2009 and further seeking a direction to the respondents to abide by the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 30.01.2009 by releasing his admissible dues. After due consideration, the writ petition was partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 26.06.2012, by directing refund of an amount of Rs. 22, 734.00 to the petitioner and also to take a considered decision regarding claim of the petitioner to full salary for the suspension period and for pension under the “One more option to Pension” scheme, the option for which the petitioner had already exercised. Petitioner was also directed to be given a personal hearing before taking such a decision. 9. Though the Bank questioned the above decision of the Single Bench dated 26.06.2012 in Writ Appeal No. 21 of 2013, the Division Bench vide order dated 30.01.2013, dismissed the appeal by holding that the direction issued was eminently fair. 10. It appears that petitioner had to file a contempt petition before this Court alleging non-compliance of the judgment and order dated 26.06.2012. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the impugned order dated 12.03.2013 was passed, whereby it was stated that the amount of Rs. 22, 734.00 was already refunded to the petitioner. However, petitioner's claim for salary during the suspension period and for grant of pension under the “One more option to Pension” scheme was rejected. 11. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 12. In this round of litigation, petitioner has confined his grievance only to the aspect of non-release of pension under the above scheme. 13. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the bank has filed an affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner. 11. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above. 12. In this round of litigation, petitioner has confined his grievance only to the aspect of non-release of pension under the above scheme. 13. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the bank has filed an affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that petitioner did not opt for pension and instead opted for contributory provident fund when the option was first introduced in the year 1995. Thus, he never became a member of the pension scheme of the bank, which is covered by the United Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, (for short, Pension Regulations, 1995). As per the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 and the bank's circular dated 24.08.2010, read with circular of Indian Banks Association dated 10.08.2010, those who did not opt for pension in the first round were given a second option. However, the second option for pension can be exercised only by those who have ceased to be in service of the bank on account of retirement or superannuation, death or on account of VRS prior to 27.04.2010, but after 29.09.1995. Pension in the banking industry was introduced for the first time in the year 1995 for those who were in the service of the bank as on 29.09.1995 and those who had retired from service w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Pension was introduced in the banks in lieu of contributory provident fund and the employees were given the option to choose either pension or contributory provident fund, i.e., bank's part of contributory provident fund. Those who had opted for pension had surrendered the bank's contribution to provident fund with interest to the pension fund. Petitioner did not opt for pension under the first option. After prolonged negotiation between bank management and bank employees, it was decided to provide second option to those bank employees who did not opt for pension in the first option. It is, however, contended that petitioner is not entitled to pension under the second option because his service was terminated after a disciplinary proceeding by imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement, which cannot be equated with premature retirement. It is, however, contended that petitioner is not entitled to pension under the second option because his service was terminated after a disciplinary proceeding by imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement, which cannot be equated with premature retirement. Therefore, it is contended that petitioner is not entitled to pension and the impugned order dated 12.03.2013 has been rightly passed, which is in conformity with the Division Bench judgment dated 30.01.2009 as well as the subsequent judgment of the Single Bench dated 26.06.2012. Contending that writ petition is devoid of any merit, the answering respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition. 14. Heard Mr P K Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr A C Kalita, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) and Mr S Dutta, learned Senior Counsel representing the Bank for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. 15. Mr Goswami, learned Senior Counsel submits that the only issue for consideration in this writ petition is the entitlement of the petitioner to pension under the “One more option to Pension” scheme. He submits that claim of pension of an employee of the bank is governed by the provisions of Pension Regulations, 1995. Under Regulation 33, an employee who is compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 01.11.1993 may be granted pension at a rate not less than two-third and not more than full pension admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement, which he would have been entitled to, on his superannuation on such date. A memorandum of settlement dated 27.04.2010 was entered into between the Indian Banks' Association representing the management of the banks and workmen represented by various associations and federations. As per the terms of settlement, another option for joining the existing pension scheme was extended to those employees, who were in the service of the banks prior to 29.09.1995 in case of nationalized banks and continued in the service of the banks on the date of the settlement. It would also be available to those employees, who were in the service of the banks prior to 29.09.1995 in the case of nationalized banks and had retired after that date, but prior to the date of settlement. Referring to Clause-VII of the terms of settlement, Mr Goswami submits that the terms of settlement were required to be incorporated in the Pension Regulations, 1995. Referring to Clause-VII of the terms of settlement, Mr Goswami submits that the terms of settlement were required to be incorporated in the Pension Regulations, 1995. Once the terms of settlement are incorporated in the Pension Regulations, 1995, the provisions of the said regulations would be available to those employees, who are eligible for pension and who had applied for pension as per the second option in terms of the settlement under the “One more option to Pension” scheme. He, therefore, submits that provisions of Regulation 33 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, would be attracted in the case of the petitioner and therefore, he would be entitled to pension under the said scheme. Petitioner otherwise fulfills the eligibility criteria for pension under the second option and had applied within the stipulated period. Therefore, decision of the bank to deny pension to the petitioner is not justified. 16. Opposing the submissions of Mr Goswami, learned Senior Counsel for the bank submits that as per the terms of settlement dated 27.04.2010, particularly, Clause-II thereof, only those employees, who were in the service of the Bank prior to 29.09.1995 and had retired after that date but prior to the date of settlement would be entitled to join the existing pension scheme by offering another option. The word “retired” cannot be interpreted in a manner to include an employee, who has been compulsorily retired by way of punishment. This has been clarified in Clause 3 of the bank's circular dated 24.08.2010. Respondents had contended in the earlier round of litigation that petitioner would not be entitled to pension. Therefore, such claim made by the petitioner would be barred by the rule of constructive res judicata under Section 11 Explanation IV of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In support of his submissions, Mr Dutta has placed reliance on the following decisions:- Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Limited -Vs- Official Liquidator. (1978) 1 SCC 490 . Ramadhar Shrivas -Vs- Bhagwan Das. (2005) 13 SCC 1 . Ramesh Chandra Sharma -Vs- Punjab National Bank. (2007) 9 SCC 15 . Manish Goel -Vs- Rohini Goel. (2010) 4 SCC 393 . Union of India -Vs- Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Others. (2011) 7 SCC 397 . 17. In his reply, Mr Goswami submits that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had directed the respondents to take a considered decision on the claim of the petitioner to pension. Manish Goel -Vs- Rohini Goel. (2010) 4 SCC 393 . Union of India -Vs- Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Others. (2011) 7 SCC 397 . 17. In his reply, Mr Goswami submits that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court had directed the respondents to take a considered decision on the claim of the petitioner to pension. Thereafter, impugned decision was taken, rejecting the claim of the petitioner to pension. In the contempt proceeding, this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to question the legality and validity of such decision in an appropriate proceeding. Accordingly, present writ petition has been filed assailing the validity of such decision. In such circumstances, it is not open to the respondents to raise the plea of constructive res judicata while opposing petitioner's claim. Reiterating his submissions, Mr Goswami submits that the terms of settlement dated 27.04.2010 stands incorporated in the Pension Regulations, 1995, which regulations will have to be understood as a whole. Contention advanced by the respondents that provisions of the Pension Regulations, 1995, would be applicable only to those employees, who had opted for pension under the first option in the year 1995 and not to those who had opted under the second option, is wholly untenable and cannot be sustained in law. Mr Goswami has placed reliance on a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of United Bank of India -Vs- Prasanta Kumar Roy; which was not interfered with by the Supreme Court in United Bank of India -Vs-Prasanta Kumar Roy; reported in (2012) 12 SCC 519. Further reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in CP Krishnaswamy -Vs- Union of India, reported in. 18. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 19. The only issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is the entitlement of the petitioner to pension under the “One more option to Pension” scheme. Petitioner had initially opted for contributory provident fund. Under the aforesaid scheme, he had opted for pension giving undertaking to comply with the required conditions. 19. The only issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is the entitlement of the petitioner to pension under the “One more option to Pension” scheme. Petitioner had initially opted for contributory provident fund. Under the aforesaid scheme, he had opted for pension giving undertaking to comply with the required conditions. However, according to the respondents, the application was returned back and by the impugned decision dated 12.03.2013, claim of the petitioner has been rejected primarily on the ground that since he was compulsorily retired from service by way of punishment, he is not eligible to opt for pension under the said scheme. 20. Before adverting to the above issue it would be apposite to first deal with the preliminary objection raised by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that this issue, i.e., petitioner's claim to pension cannot be gone into in the present proceeding being barred by the rule of constructive res judicata. 21. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has referred to Explanation - IV to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in support of his submissions and also the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramadhar Shrivas (supra). The principle underlying the concept of res judicata is that no Court shall try any suit or issue between the same parties which were earlier heard and finally decided by a competent Court. Under Explanation - IV to Section 11, any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in the former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit. Explaining the above, the Supreme Court in Ramadhar Shrivas (supra) held that the expression “matter in issue” as appearing under Section-11 connotes the matter directly and substantially in issue, actually or constructively. The matter is actually in issue when it is in issue directly and substantially and a competent Court decides it on merits. The matter is constructively in issue when it might and ought to have been made a ground of defence or attack in the former suit. The Supreme Court held that the principle underlying Explanation IV is that where the parties have had an opportunity of controverting a matter, that should be taken to be the same thing as if the matter had been actually controverted and decided. The Supreme Court held that the principle underlying Explanation IV is that where the parties have had an opportunity of controverting a matter, that should be taken to be the same thing as if the matter had been actually controverted and decided. The object is to compel the plaintiff or the defendant to take all the grounds of attack or defence in one and the same suit. 22. Having noticed the legal position relating to constructive res judicata, facts of the case relevant to this issue may be examined. The Division Bench in its judgment dated 30.01.2009, had set aside the penalty of removal from service and remitted the matter to the respondents to take a fresh decision with the clarification that following such denovo decision, all consequential reliefs as may flow to the petitioner including protection of pension should be afforded to him. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed order dated 24.12.2009, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner with superannuation benefits, i.e., pension and/ or provident fund and gratuity as may be due. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court. It is true that the respondents in their affidavit had contested the claim of the petitioner to pension in the said proceeding by contending that Bank had released all the admissible consequential reliefs to the petitioner and nothing remained to be paid. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had exercised his option for pension under the “One more option to Pension” scheme, notified by the Bank on 16.08.2010, the writ petition was partly allowed by this Court directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to pension under the aforesaid scheme. This decision of the writ Court was upheld by the Division Bench in writ appeal. During the pendency of the contempt proceeding, which the petitioner had instituted alleging non-compliance of the order dated 26.06.2012, impugned order dated 12.03.2013 came to be passed. The contempt proceeding was closed by this Court on 24.07.2014 by giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order dated 12.03.2013 in an appropriate proceeding. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. 23. The contempt proceeding was closed by this Court on 24.07.2014 by giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned order dated 12.03.2013 in an appropriate proceeding. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. 23. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, Court is of the unhesitant view that the objection raised by Mr Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the claim of the petitioner to pension under the second option is barred by the principle of constructive res judicata is wholly untenable and is accordingly rejected. 24. Having held so, impugned order dated 12.03.2013 may now be referred to, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- “Your second plea that you have exercised the option for pension under “One more option to pension” scheme as notified in terms of Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 is also not tenable. It is evident from the records that initially you preferred Contributory Provident Fund and did not opt for the pension under first option of pension scheme in 1995. You have averred that you had applied for the pension under second option on 17.09.2010 through Bank's Bharalumukh Branch. However, the Bank never informed/advised to exercise such option by submitting application inasmuch as, you are not eligible to exercise such option in terms of Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 and Bank's Circular No. SP/OPTION/2/OM-0293/10-11 dated 16/08/2010. Despite, the Bank vide letter No. Staff Pension/2016/2010 dated 05/10/2010 duly informed you by returning your application dated 17/09/2010 after due consideration of the same and by citing the appropriate reasons for your ineligibility under second option for pension as mentioned in Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 and further clarified by Circular No. CIR/HR & IR/G2/665/90/2010-11/999 dated 10.08.2010 issued by the Indian Bank's Association and Bank's Circular No. SP/OPTION/2/OM-0293/10-11 dated 16/08/2010 and Circular No. SP/OPTION/4/OM-0318/10-11 dated 20/08/2010. In terms of Joint Note dated 27.04.2010, being an industry level agreement and signed between Indian Bank's Association and various Officers' Associations/Workmen Unions thus, binding on parties to the agreement, the category of eligible persons who may exercise the second option for pension, is explicitly stated therein. In terms of Joint Note dated 27.04.2010, being an industry level agreement and signed between Indian Bank's Association and various Officers' Associations/Workmen Unions thus, binding on parties to the agreement, the category of eligible persons who may exercise the second option for pension, is explicitly stated therein. So far as category of eligible persons who were not in service of the Bank on the date of Joint Note/settlement, i.e., retired persons is concerned, it is evident from the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010, read with IBA's Circular No. CIR/HR & IR/G2/665/90/2010-11/999 dated 10.08.2010 and Bank's Circular No. SP/OPTION/2/OM-0293/10-11 dated 16.08.2010 that the second option for pension can be exercised only by those who ceased to be in service on account of retirement on superannuation, death or on account of VRS under special scheme prior to 27.04.2010 but after 29.09.1995 from the nationalized Banks and only such persons are eligible for joining the said pension scheme as retired employees subject to terms and conditions stipulated. The Indian Bank's Association vide its Circular No. CIR/HR & IR/G2/665/90/2010-11/999 dated 10.08.2010 advised all Banks to undertake the exercise for seeking second option from the employees, both serving and retirees, explaining all the terms and conditions for such option. The IBA, in regard to eligibility criteria in respect of retirees further advised that the Officer employees who ceased to be in service on account of retirement on superannuation, death or on account of VRS under special scheme prior to 27.04.2010 but after 29.09.1995 from the nationalized Banks are eligible to opt for joining the said pension scheme as retired employees. Pursuant to the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 and further clarifications and advice of the Indian Bank's Association, the Bank issued Circular No. SP/OPTION/2/OM-0293/10-11 dated 16/08/2010 wherein, Clause 2 of the said Circular defines the term 'retired employee' and it does not include the employees whose services have been terminated by way of punishment. Moreover, Clause 3 of the said Circular provides for the eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions stipulated for exercising the another option for pension by retired employees. Moreover, Clause 3 of the said Circular provides for the eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions stipulated for exercising the another option for pension by retired employees. It is an admitted fact that your cessation from service was on account of major penalty proceeding, which does not fall in category of 'retirement on superannuation' and cannot be accepted as the same in view of the duly agreed upon terms of the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 and thus, excludes you from the purview of eligibility criteria stipulated in the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 for exercise of 2nd option for pension. Though, you have applied on 17.09.2010 for one more option for pension yet, your such application does not entitle you in any way to claim for pension under second option inasmuch as, you being inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement, are not eligible to opt for pension under second option. I have thoroughly reconsidered your above plea for one more option for pension in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 including IBA's guidelines and Bank's Circulars in this respect and found that your case does not fall in the category of such retired employees who are eligible for pension as mentioned above and as such, you are not entitled to opt for the second option for pension, as claimed.” 25. A careful reading of the decision as extracted above would show that respondents have taken a stand that in terms of the Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 and the circular dated 24.08.2010, persons eligible for exercising another option for joining the existing pension scheme have been mentioned. This would include persons who were in the service of the bank prior to 29.09.1995 and who had retired after that date but prior to the date of the settlement, i.e., 27.04.2010. It is contended that an employee who has been awarded the major penalty of compulsory retirement would not come within the meaning of retired employees and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to claim pension under the second option. According to the respondents, this has been clarified in Clause 3 of the bank's circular dated 24.08.2010. In sum and substance, this is the stand of the respondents. 26. To appreciate the above contention of the respondents, relevant provisions of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and the memorandum of settlement dated 27.04.2010 may be analyzed. According to the respondents, this has been clarified in Clause 3 of the bank's circular dated 24.08.2010. In sum and substance, this is the stand of the respondents. 26. To appreciate the above contention of the respondents, relevant provisions of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and the memorandum of settlement dated 27.04.2010 may be analyzed. Firstly, the provisions of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The Pension Regulations, 1995 were framed by the Board of Directors of the bank 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, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Regulation-2 is the definition section. Under Regulation 2 (k), “date of retirement” has been defined to mean the last date of the month in which an employee attains the age of superannuation or the date on which, he is retired by the bank (emphasis supplied) or the date on which the employee voluntarily retires or the date on which the officer is deemed to have retired. Thus, this definition of “date of retirement” includes the date on which an employee is retired by the bank. An employee can be retired by the bank prior to the date of superannuation either by way of administrative measure in the public interest or by way of penalty. More about this a bit later. Regulation - 2 (y) defines 'retirement' to mean cessation from bank's service on attaining the age of superannuation or on voluntary retirement or on premature retirement. Thus, “retirement” means and includes cessation from bank's service on premature retirement by the bank. As already discussed above, premature retirement by the bank may either be in the public interest or by way of penalty. Chapter-V of the Pension Regulations, 1995 deals with Classes of Pension. There are 5 (five) classes of pension as mentioned and explained in Chapter - V. These are- superannuation pension, pension on voluntary retirement, invalid pension, premature pension and compulsory retirement pension. Regulation-32 deals with premature pension which may be granted to an employee who has rendered minimum 10 (ten) years of service and who retires from service on account of the orders of the bank to retire prematurely in the public interest or for any other reason specified in the service regulations or settlement. Regulation-32 deals with premature pension which may be granted to an employee who has rendered minimum 10 (ten) years of service and who retires from service on account of the orders of the bank to retire prematurely in the public interest or for any other reason specified in the service regulations or settlement. Thus, Regulation 32 deals with pension in the case of an eligible employee who is prematurely retired from service by the bank in the public interest. Regulation 33, on the other hand, deals with compulsory retirement pension. It provides that an employee compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 01.11.1993 may be granted pension at a rate not less than two-thirds and not more than full admissible pension, if he is otherwise entitled to such pension. Thus, a conjoint reading of Regulations 2 (k), (y) and Regulation 33 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, would make it abundantly clear that an employee of the bank, who is compulsorily retired from service by way of penalty on or after 01.11.1993 would be entitled to pension subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria. However, the rate of pension may not be less than two-third and not more than the full amount of pension. 27. Having noticed the above, relevant provisions of the memorandum of settlement dated 27.04.2010, which has been referred to by the respondents as the Joint Note may now be adverted to. This memorandum of settlement was an industry level settlement between the Indian Banks' Association representing the management on the one hand and 5 (five) employees' associations/federations representing the workmen on the other side. This settlement is a statutorily recognized and is an approved settlement under Sections 2 (p) and 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. It is well settled that under the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a settlement arrived at between the employer and employee is placed at a higher pedestal than even an award passed after adjudication. This is so because the basic objective of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to maintain industrial peace while providing for a fair mechanism to protect the rights and interest of the workmen so that industrial production is not hampered. Keeping the above principle in mind, relevant provisions of the memorandum of settlement may now be examined. This is so because the basic objective of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is to maintain industrial peace while providing for a fair mechanism to protect the rights and interest of the workmen so that industrial production is not hampered. Keeping the above principle in mind, relevant provisions of the memorandum of settlement may now be examined. A reading of the short recital of the settlement would show that initially a memorandum of settlement was signed between the bank management and the employees on 29.10.1993 introducing pension scheme in the banking industry as second retiral benefit in lieu of contributory provident fund. The terms of the settlement were incorporated in the pension regulations of the respective banks, which were, thereafter, notified in the official gazette. This is how Pension Regulations, 1995, came about, introducing pension in lieu of contributory provident fund in respect of those employees who had opted for the pension scheme. Those employees, who were in the service of the nationalized banks before 29.09.1995 and continued to be in the service of such banks on or after 29.09.1995 but did not exercise the option to join the pension scheme were eligible for contributory provident fund. Bank employees were representing and also agitating to allow another option to those employees, who did not opt for pension when the pension scheme was first introduced. After protracted negotiation between the management and the workmen, the settlement dated 27.04.2010 was arrived at. As per Clause- 2 (II), another option for joining the existing pension scheme shall be extended to those employees, who were in the service of the nationalized banks prior to 29.09.1995 and who had retired after that date but prior to the date of the settlement. As per Clause- 4, employees of nationalized banks, who ceased to be in service on or after 29.09.1995 on account of voluntary retirement under any special scheme, shall be eligible to exercise the option to join the pension scheme. Clause - 5 provides that all the regulations of Pension Regulations, 1995, shall be applicable to those who opt for the pension scheme in terms of the settlement except to the extent mentioned in the settlement itself. Finally, Clause - 7 stipulates that the terms of the said settlement shall be included in the Pension Regulations, 1995. 28. Clause - 5 provides that all the regulations of Pension Regulations, 1995, shall be applicable to those who opt for the pension scheme in terms of the settlement except to the extent mentioned in the settlement itself. Finally, Clause - 7 stipulates that the terms of the said settlement shall be included in the Pension Regulations, 1995. 28. Question for consideration is whether the expression “retired” used in Clause - 2 (II) of the terms of settlement dated 27.04.2010 would include within itself an employee, who has been compulsorily retired from service by way of punishment. 29. The expression “retired” used in the memorandum of settlement dated 27.04.2010 has not been defined in the said settlement though Clause-4 thereof provides that employees, who had gone on voluntary retirement under special scheme would be eligible to exercise the option to join the pension scheme. Though nothing significant may be read into it, Clause - 4, nonetheless, is an indication by way of illustration about the width and amplitude of the expression “retired”. From the recital of the settlement, it is discernible that pension scheme was introduced in the banking industry as second retiral benefit in lieu of contributory provident fund following settlement arrived at between management and workmen. This was incorporated in the Pension Regulations, 1995. Clause- 7 of the memorandum of settlement makes it abundantly clear that the terms of settlement would be incorporated in the Pension Regulations, 1995. Legal implication of such incorporation would be that terms of the settlement would form part of the Pension Regulations, 1995. If that be so, the expression “retired” employed in the memorandum of settlement dated 27.04.2010 would have the same meaning as provided under the Pension Regulations, 1995, which as already noticed above would include an employee whose services were terminated prematurely by way of penalty. As already discussed above, Regulation 33 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, expressly confers pensionary benefits to an employee who is compulsorily retired from service as a penalty on or after 01.11.1993. In the instant case, petitioner was imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 12.10.1999. 30. Thus, from a conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and the memorandum of settlement dated 27.04.2010 interpreted in the manner above, it becomes evident that petitioner would be entitled to apply for pension under the “One more option to Pension” scheme. 30. Thus, from a conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and the memorandum of settlement dated 27.04.2010 interpreted in the manner above, it becomes evident that petitioner would be entitled to apply for pension under the “One more option to Pension” scheme. The exclusions mentioned in Clause - 3 of the bank circular dated 24.08.2010 is contrary to the intent and object of the memorandum of settlement dated 27.04.2010 which stands incorporated in the Pension Regulations, 1995. 31. In view of the discussions made above, impugned order dated 12.03.2013 is set aside and quashed. Respondents are directed to process the option submitted by the petitioner for pension under the “One more option to Pension” scheme, subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria. Necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 32. Writ petition is accordingly allowed, but without any order as to cost(s).