ORDER The petitioner was an employee of the respondent Canara Bank. She was issued a charge sheet on 9-6-1997 and on the basis of the departmental proceedings, by order dated 20-8-1988 the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner agitated the matter before the Central Industrial Tribunal which was dismissed on merits and the writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed. The petitioner, then, after more than a decade of the issuance of the order of compulsory retirement, filed a representation dated 13-4-2011 for grant of pension in terms of the Canara Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1975. By the impugned order dated 8-8-2011 the prayer of the petitioner for grant of pension has been rejected. Challenging the same this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard Sri. Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Ramesh Upadyaya, learned counsel for the respondent bank and perused the records. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order refusing to grant pension to the petitioner has been passed on the basis of instructions/circular issued by the Head Office and not in terms of the Canara Bank Service Regulations, 1975 and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the instructions issued by the Head Office were in conformity with the provisions of the regulations and as such there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned in this petition. 4. Regulation 33 provides that an employee who is compulsorily retired may be granted pension by order passed by an authority higher than the authority competent to impose such penalty. By circular No.297/2010 dated 21-8-2010 issued by the Board, which is an authority higher than the authority which imposed the penalty in the case of the petitioner, by a general direction provided that the employees who have been imposed punishment of compulsory retirement shall not be eligible for the benefit of grant of pension. As such, in my view, the order having been passed by the Board, which is an authority superior to the one that passed the penalty order, it cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Regulations of 1975. 5. Further the Regulations of 1975 merely provides that employee who is compulsorily retired ‘may be’ granted pension. As such, in my view, the order having been passed by the Board, which is an authority superior to the one that passed the penalty order, it cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Regulations of 1975. 5. Further the Regulations of 1975 merely provides that employee who is compulsorily retired ‘may be’ granted pension. It does not provide for an employee, who is compulsorily retired, to lay a claim, as of right, for grant of pension. Even otherwise the order dated 8-8-2011 which is impugned in this writ petition clearly states that the same has been passed in terms of circular No.297/2010 issued by the Board. The petitioner has chosen not to challenge the said circular. In such view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no interference with the order impugned in this writ petition is called for. 6. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.