From a conjoint reading of the above two paragraphs of Clause 4 of the Compensation Policy, it becomes self evident that whereas the Policy provides for provision of pension contributions for the employees of the Bank, any such pension schemes shall not be applicable to the Chairman and whole time Directors of the Bank. Thus, the paragraph relied upon by the petitioner has nothing to do with the definition of the expressions ‘date of retirement’ or ‘deemed to have retired’ and, in any case, it does not exclude attraction of such definitions to a person nominated as Government Director or appointed as Chairman / CEO from the serving management. The paragraph relied upon by the petitioner, in fact, cuts at the very root of his argument, in that the first sentence of this para says “Chairman and whole time Directors shall not be covered under pension schemes unless whole time Directors have been appointed from amongst the serving management and covered as regular employees of the Bank”. Once it is admitted by the petitioner that he is not covered under the pension schemes, and rightly so, that automatically tantamount to admission on his part that he in his capacity as being the Government Director on the Board and Chairman/CEO was not an employee of the Bank. If that be so, as it, in fact, is, the contention that the petitioner continued to be an employee of the Bank unabated and uninterrupted is self defeated and contradicted. Furthermore, the second sentence of the bulleted paragraph cited by the petitioner states that ‘such benefits’, i.e., the pension benefits, shall be available to whole time Directors only upto the time of normal superannuation and in case they are
