JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Aakash Modi waives service of admission on behalf of the respondent No. 1-employee. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present appeal is taken up for final disposal today. 3. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, emanates from the CAV Judgment dated 22.12.2023, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has held that the petitioner is entitled to exercise pension option under the Circular No. 5690 dated 27.08.2010. 4. The facts, as recorded by the learned Single Judge in the CAV Judgment dated 22.12.2023, are not in dispute. 5. Pursuant to the advertisement and after undergoing the prescribed recruitment process, the original petitioner was selected and appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier by the appellant-Bank. The respondent joined his duty with the Bank on 14.05.1974. He rendered his services till March 2005, when he was relieved from his services on his rendering voluntary retirement on medical ground. At the time of retirement, the respondent was working on the post of Officer Scale-I (Assistant Manager) with the appellant-Bank. The respondent applied for voluntary retirement vide application dated 19.10.2004 on medical ground as he suffered from two heart attacks – first in the year 2003 and thereafter, in the year 2004. 6. In his application for voluntary retirement, the respondent has mentioned that he opts for the pension scheme, if the same is considered in the next bi-parte Settlement. The appellant- Bank has approved the said request by passing the order dated 17.03.2005 and the respondent was relieved from the services and he was also paid his dues of Rs.4,00,000/-. 7. Thereafter, bi-parte Settlement was worked out between the Bank Management and the Union and a Circular dated 27.08.2010 was issued inviting second option of pension from the existing employees, who had not opted for pension and also from the employees, who had been superannuated under the regular or special scheme of the bank on or after 29.09.1995. Under new scheme dated 27.08.2010, the respondent by an application dated 22.09.2010 has exercised option of pension. Such application was forwarded to the competent authority for its consideration. The respondent has also made repeated reminders for the same. Finally, he was conveyed that he is not covered by the scheme dated 27.08.2010 for grant of pension. Under new scheme dated 27.08.2010, the respondent by an application dated 22.09.2010 has exercised option of pension. Such application was forwarded to the competent authority for its consideration. The respondent has also made repeated reminders for the same. Finally, he was conveyed that he is not covered by the scheme dated 27.08.2010 for grant of pension. The rejection led to filing of the captioned writ petition, which has been allowed in favour of the respondent, hence this appeal is preferred by the appellant-Bank. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Varun Patel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has misdirected himself in issuing the directions in favour of the respondent- original petitioner for exercising his pension option under the Circular No. 5690 dated 27.08.2010, since the respondent has retired prematurely on the medical ground. By referring to the Circular No. 5690 dated 27.08.2010, more particularly, Clause Nos.5 and 7, he has submitted that the employees, who have retired on medical ground and availed the benefits just like the respondent, and after having received an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- are not entitled for pension. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India vs. Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi and another, (2006) 12 SCC 20 . Thus, it is urged that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside. 9. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Aakash Modi appearing for respondent- employee has submitted that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference as the same is precisely passed after considering the judgment of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in case of Sapna Roy vs. Union of India and others passed in FMA No. 3809 of 2016, which is upheld by the Supreme Court in the order passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2809 of 2019. 10. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent- employee has further submitted that in fact, the application filed by the respondent-employee on 19.10.2004 seeking premature retirement on the medical ground will disclose that he has reserved his rights to opt for pension scheme and his benefit will be considered in the by next bi-parte Settlement. 10. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent- employee has further submitted that in fact, the application filed by the respondent-employee on 19.10.2004 seeking premature retirement on the medical ground will disclose that he has reserved his rights to opt for pension scheme and his benefit will be considered in the by next bi-parte Settlement. It is submitted that in fact, due to medical ground, the respondent-employee was constrained to opt for premature retirement and hence, he cannot be debarred from the benefit of Circular No. 5690 dated 27.08.2010 and he has to be considered as a retired employee within the meaning of Clause 4 in sub-clause (2) of the Circular dated 27.08.2010. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala Devi vs. Central Bank of India, 2014 (16) SCC 260 . 11. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that respondent-employee filed an application on 19.10.2004 seeking premature retirement on medical ground. The said application is incorporated as under: “Mr. D.D. Parmar Assistant Manager, Union Bank of India, Ellisbridge Branch, Ahmedabad Date: 19th October, 2004. To, The Chief Manager, Union Bank Bhavan, Ellisbridge Branch, Ahmedabad. Dear Sir, Subject: Application for seeking premature retirement on medical ground. Mr. D.D. Parmar, P.F. No. 85891. I the undersigned, Mr. D.D. Parmar submit my application for seeking premature retirement on medical ground as per staff circular No. 4989, dated 22nd July, 2003 of our H.R.M. Department, Central Office, Mumbai for onward submission to our H.R.M. department, Central Office, Mumbai through your goodselves. Sir, I am suffering from Coronary Heart disease and I was having severe heart attack on 30th April, 2003. I had to undergo Coronary Angioplasty by Dr. Bhupesh R. Shah in S.A.L. Hospital, Ahmedabad which is being recognised by Union Bank of India. I joined my official duty on 1st September, 2003 after 4 months of rest and carried on my duty until 21st June, 2004. But as my Heart diseases get advanced, I had to undergo Coronary Angioplasty second time on 22nd June, 2004 by Dr. Bhupesh R. Shah in S.A.L Hospital, Ahmedabad following recurrence of chest pain. My Cardiologist Dr. Bhupesh R. Shah has advised me not to join my official duty now onwards and take adequate bed rest and regular treatment follow up. But as my Heart diseases get advanced, I had to undergo Coronary Angioplasty second time on 22nd June, 2004 by Dr. Bhupesh R. Shah in S.A.L Hospital, Ahmedabad following recurrence of chest pain. My Cardiologist Dr. Bhupesh R. Shah has advised me not to join my official duty now onwards and take adequate bed rest and regular treatment follow up. Looking to my poor physical health; and my cardiologist's advice, I feel it will be far better for me, my family and our organisation to seek premature retirement on medical ground. Due to my illness and poor health, I compelled to take premature retirement on medical ground. I enclose herewith the medical certificate of Dr. Bhupesh R. Shah, an interventional Cardiologist, under whom my treatment is going on and a certificate from V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad which is being run by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. Sir, it is my privilege to opt pension scheme, if this benefit will be considered in next Biaparted Settlement by the management. So, I request the management to permit me to opt pension scheme. I will be highly obliged if you will justify the matter and favour me. Please do the needful in the matter. Awaiting your sympathetic favorable reply. Yours faithfully, (D.D. Parmar)” 12. Pursuant to such application, he was retired on 17.03.2005. 13. It is not in dispute that in light of the Pension Regulation, 1995, the appellant-Bank issued a Circular No. 5690 dated 27.08.2010 in favour of the employees, who opted for Pension and the period was extended applying for pension and the employees were permitted to exercise their option between 01.09.2010 to 30.10.2010. Accordingly, the respondent opted for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995 and as per the Circular dated 27.08.2010. The appellants denied the benefit of pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995 by resorting to the provisions of Clause 5 and 7 of the Circular dated 27.08.2010, whereas it is the case of the respondent-employee that he is entitled for pension as per Clause 4(II) and his case cannot be denied by resorting to the provisions of Clause 7 of the Circular dated 27.08.2010. 14. The relevant Clauses, on which reliance have been placed by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, are as under: “4. 14. The relevant Clauses, on which reliance have been placed by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, are as under: “4. In terms of Settlement/Joint Note dated 27th April 2010, another option for joining the existing Pension Scheme shall be extended to under mentioned categories: (I) Existing Employees/Officers or Retired on or after 27.04.2010. (a) employees/officers who were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 and continue in the service of the bank on the date of aforesaid Settlement/Joint Note i.e. 27.04.2010 and retired/continue in the service of the bank after 27.04.2010. (b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer, to become a member of the Pension fund. (c) existing employees/Officers authorize the Trust of the Provident Fund of the Bank to transfer the entire contribution of the bank along with interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Pension Fund. (d) in case of the employee/officer retired on or after 27.04.2010; they should refund the entire amount of the bank's contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon received on retirement. (e) Contribute from their arrears on account of wage revision in terms of Settlement/Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 towards 30% of the estimated funding gap amounting to @2.8 times of the revised pay for the month of November 2007 for Individual employee/officer. (II) Retired Employees/Officers prior to 27.04.2010 (a) employees/officers who were in service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 and retired after that date and prior to the date of the aforesaid Settlement/Joint Note. (b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer to become a member of the Pension fund. (c) refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of the bank's contribution to the Provident Fund and Interest accrued thereon received by the employee/officer on retirement together with his share in contribution towards meeting 30% of the funding gap amounting to 56% of the bank's contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued as per the terms and conditions set out in the Settlement/Joint Note dated 27.04.2010. xxx xxx xxx 5. xxx xxx xxx 5. Employees who ceased to be in service on or after 29th September, 1995 on account of voluntary retirement under special scheme after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years shall be eligible to exercise an option to join the Pension Scheme subject to the terms and conditions mentioned for retiring employees opting for joining the scheme. 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PENSION OPTION: Indian Banks' Association has clarified that Officers who retired voluntarily; in terms of Regulation 19 of Officers' Service Regulations and Employees/Officers who resigned, dismissed, terminated and compulsorily retired, are not eligible for pension option.” 15. It is not in dispute that the respondent-employee had almost completed 30 years of service and had opted for premature retirement on medical ground and he has to be considered as a retired employee (Officer) as per Clause 4(II)(a) of the Circular dated 27.08.2010. The appellants are construing his premature retirement under Clause 7 of the Circular dated 27.08.2010 and is equating his premature retirement to the employees/ officers, who resigned/dismissed/terminated/compulsory retired. In our considered opinion, the case of respondent-employee will not fall in either of these categories as he has neither resigned/dismissed/terminated/compulsory retired. The respondent- employee had sought premature retirement on medical ground, which was permitted by the appellant-Bank. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Shashikala Devi (supra), as under: “14. When viewed in the backdrop of the above facts, it is difficult to reject the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that what the deceased-employee intended to do by his letter dated 8th October, 2007 was to seek voluntary retirement and not resignation from his employment. We say so in the light of several attendant circumstances. In the first place, the employee at the time of his writing the letter dated 8th October, 2007 was left with just about one and a half years of service. It will be too imprudent for anyone to suggest that a bank employee who has worked with such commitment as earned him the appreciation of the management would have so thoughtlessly given up the retiral benefits in the form of pension etc. which he had earned on account of his continued dedication to his job. It will be too imprudent for anyone to suggest that a bank employee who has worked with such commitment as earned him the appreciation of the management would have so thoughtlessly given up the retiral benefits in the form of pension etc. which he had earned on account of his continued dedication to his job. If pension is not a bounty, but a right which the employee acquires on account of long years of sincere and good work done by him, the Court will be slow in presuming that the employee intended to waive or abandon such a valuable right without any cogent reason. At any rate there ought to be some compelling circumstance to suggest that the employee had consciously given up the right and benefit, which he had acquired so assiduously. Far from the material on record suggesting any such conscious surrender abandonment or waiver of the right to retiral benefit including pension, we find that the material placed on record clearly suggests that the employee had no source of income or sustenance except the benefit that he had earned for long years of service. This is evident from a reading of the letter dated 8 th October, 2007 in which the employee seeks release of his retiral benefits at the earliest to enable him to undergo medical treatment that he requires. The letter, as seen earlier, lays emphasis on the fact that for his sustenance the employee is dependent entirely on such benefits. It is in that view difficult for us to attribute to the employee the intention to give up what was rightfully his in terms of retiral benefits, when such benefits were the only source not only for his survival but for his medical treatment that he so urgently required. For a waiver of a legally enforceable right earned by an employee, it is necessary that the same is clear and unequivocal, conscious and with full knowledge of the consequences. No such intention can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The employee’s subsequent letters and communication which are placed on record cannot be said to be an afterthought. Being proximate in point of time letter dated 8th October, 2007 must be treated to be a part of the subsequent communication making the employee’s intentions clear, at least for purposes of determining the true intention underlying the act of the employee. The employee’s subsequent letters and communication which are placed on record cannot be said to be an afterthought. Being proximate in point of time letter dated 8th October, 2007 must be treated to be a part of the subsequent communication making the employee’s intentions clear, at least for purposes of determining the true intention underlying the act of the employee. 15. It is, in our opinion, abundantly clear that the beneficial provisions of a Pension Scheme or Pension Regulations have been interpreted rather liberally so as to promote the object underlying the same rather than denying benefits due to beneficiaries under such provisions. In cases where an employee has the requisite years of qualifying service for grant of pension, and where he could under the service conditions applicable seek voluntary retirement, the benefit of pension has been allowed by treating the purported resignation to be a request for voluntary retirement. We see no compelling reasons for doing so even in the present case, which in our opinion is in essence a case of the deceased employee seeking voluntary retirement rather than resigning.” 16. The Supreme Court, after considering the Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, which stipulates the pension on voluntary retirement, has held that the voluntary retirement or the resignation of an employee always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is held that an employee, who has completed 20 years of qualifying service, is entitled to seek voluntary retirement from the service of the bank provided that he gives a notice of three months or more in writing to the appointing authority and in case, the appointing authority does not refuse to grant permission for voluntary retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement becomes effective from the date of expiry of the said period. In the present case, the case of respondent-employee stands on higher pedestal since he was permitted to retire on medical ground prematurely and while seeking such premature retirement in his application dated 19.10.2004, he has specifically stated that he would like to opt the pension scheme, if this benefit will be considered in next bi-parte Settlement. 17. In the present case, the case of respondent-employee stands on higher pedestal since he was permitted to retire on medical ground prematurely and while seeking such premature retirement in his application dated 19.10.2004, he has specifically stated that he would like to opt the pension scheme, if this benefit will be considered in next bi-parte Settlement. 17. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge in the judgment, after considering the judgment dated 20.09.2019 of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in case of Sapna Roy vs. Union of India passed in FMA No. 3809 of 2016, wherein on identical facts, the officer, who retired on medical ground, held to be eligible for the pension. 18. The said order was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2809 of 2019, wherein the Supreme Court, after incorporating the order passed by the Calcutta High Court, has declined to interfere in the said order however, it is observed that “in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136(1) of the Constitution of India.” The learned Single Judge, after examining the Circular dated 27.08.2010, has allowed the writ petition. 19. We are in complete agreement with the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge. The reliance placed by the appellants on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi (supra) is misplaced since in the said judgment, the Supreme Court has examined the case of the employee, who retired as a award staff and it is held that such award staff is not entitled to grant of pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. Thus, the respondent-employee cannot be treated as ineligible employee/officer, as envisaged under Clause 7 of the Circular dated 27.08.2010. 20. The present Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The Civil Application (for stay) also stands disposed of accordingly.