Judgment :- The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for a direction and in particular in the nature of a declaration that the decision of the respondent-bank to deny the benefits of sick leave, leave fare concession, casual leave and medical aid as provided in the Indian Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 to the VRS optees as illegal and unconstitutional and for a consequential prayer to direct the respondents to grant the same to all the officers until they are relieved from service. According to the petitioner association, the members of the association are officers in the respondent Indian Bank. The respondent-bank introduced the Indian Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 by a circular dated November 9, 2000. The employees who are desirous of availing the scheme were directed to submit their applications from November 27, 2000 to December 26, 2000. The implementation of the scheme will depend on the number of applications that are received, availability of funds and other considerations. As the members of the petitioner association who have completed minimum of 15 years of service or 40 years of age as on December 26, 2000 are eligible to apply for VRS, they had submitted their applications opting to go on voluntary retirement before the last date prescribed for the said purpose. That being so, the respondent-bank issued a circular dated January 4, 2001 wherein it was stated as follows: "The VRS optees under the above scheme may be permitted (a) Casual leave on pro-rata basis for every completed month or part thereof; (b) Privilege leave (keeping in view office exigencies); (c) Festival advance; (d) Provident Fund loan and (e) Hospitalisation reimbursement (as per rules) The VRS optees under the above scheme need not be permitted(a) Sick Leave, (b) LFC and (c) Medical aid" Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the members of the petitioner association who have opted for voluntary retirement under the VRS are entitled to sick leave, LFC and medical aid as per the service regulations. When the respondent-bank announced the voluntary retirement scheme on November 9, 2000, it had specifically stated that the employees/officers opting to go on voluntary retirement are eligible for leave encashment as per the rules. When the respondent-bank announced the voluntary retirement scheme on November 9, 2000, it had specifically stated that the employees/officers opting to go on voluntary retirement are eligible for leave encashment as per the rules. Having so said in the said scheme and having received the applications from the members of the petitioner association, the respondent-bank cannot now deny the benefit to the petitioners to avail sick leave, LFC and medical aid. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the members of the petitioner association who have opted for voluntary retirement under the. Indian Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 shall be also declared eligible for the above benefits. P. Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would on the other hand contend that it is true that the members of the petitioner association are eligible for sick leave, LFC and medical aid as per the rules. However, the learned counsel on the basis of the averments made in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit would contend that pursuant to the voluntary retirement scheme announced by the respondent-bank, 2, 500 officers opted for VRS, and around 360 applications are from Branch Managers of various branches. Relying upon the above, the learned counsel would contend that therefore only the respondent-bank had to take a decision in circular dated January 4, 2001 not to permit the VRS optees for sick leave, LFC and medical aid. I have given my due consideration to the rival submissions made by the respective counsel. The Board of Directors have framed Indian Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 read with sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 in consultation with Reserve Bank of India and with previous sanction of the Central Government. As per Regulation 24(1), an officer is eligible for reimbursement of medical expenses actually incurred by him in respect of himself and his family of course, subject to certain limitations. Similarly, as per Regulation 30(1), subject to grant of leave being determined by the extent of service, an officer is eligible for sick leave. Equally as per Regulation 44(iii), an officer is also entitled for leave travel concession. It is not in dispute that the said regulations are applicable to the members of the petitioner association who have opted for voluntary retirement under VRS. Equally as per Regulation 44(iii), an officer is also entitled for leave travel concession. It is not in dispute that the said regulations are applicable to the members of the petitioner association who have opted for voluntary retirement under VRS. When the Indian Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 was introduced, the employees/officers were given time to make their applications between November 27, 2000 and December 26, 2000 opting to go on voluntary retirement. In the said scheme announced on November 9, 2000 in so far as the other benefits are concerned, the scheme provided for leave encashment to the officers as per rules. Pursuant to the said scheme, eligible officers have applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme within the date stipulated by the respondent-bank namely December 26, 2000. While that being so, by circular dated January 4, 2001, the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office, Chennai of the respondent-bank has issued a circular with regard to the entitlement of the officers who have opted to go on voluntary retirement under the scheme in respect of certain benefits. In the said circular it was communicated that the VRS optees under the scheme need not be permitted (1) sick leave; (2) LFC and (3) medical aid. By virtue of the Regulations, the officers of the respondent-bank are entitled to sick leave, LFC and medical aid. These benefits cannot be deprived of by the respondent in the normal course of retirement of officers. Further, when the VRS is introduced, the respondent-bank has not put the members of the association on notice that in the event of the members opting to go on voluntary retirement, they will not be permitted for benefits of sick leave, LFC and medical aid. On the contrary, the respondent-bank in the circular dated November 9, 2000 has specifically communicated that in so far as the other benefits are concerned, the officer who goes on voluntary retirement is entitled to leave encashment as per rules indicating thereby that such officer is also entitled to sick leave, LFC and medical aid as per the rules. On the basis of the representation made in the circular, the members of the petitioner association have opted to go on voluntary retirement. On the basis of the representation made in the circular, the members of the petitioner association have opted to go on voluntary retirement. Therefore, it is not open to the respondent-bank to take away the benefit of the members of the petitioner association who have opted to go for voluntary retirement the benefits to which otherwise they are eligible under the rules and as per the very Indian Bank Employees Officers Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 itself the refusal to extend these benefits to the officers is not sustainable on more than one grounds, namely(1) The respondents are bound by the Regulations whereby the respondent cannot deprive the officers of their legitimate entitlement in respect of benefits as per the Regulations; (2) Having indicated in the scheme announced on November 9, 2000 that the officer who goes on voluntary retirement as per the scheme is entitled to leave encashment as per the rule, and having made such officer to believe that he will be also permitted to avail the benefit of sick leave, LFC and medical aid and making him to opt to go on voluntary retirement, the respondents are estopped from taking away those benefits by way of the circular dated January 4, 2001 and that too issued by the Assistant Regional Manager of Regional Office, Chennai; (3) Denial of these benefits to an officer who opts for voluntary retirement in the absence of any such conditions in the very VR Scheme itself is unsustainable However, the respondent-bank has expressed its difficulty in extending these benefits to the officers who have opted to go on voluntary retirement only for the reasons mentioned in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the counter. The reason adduced by the respondent-bank is that as against the expectation, the response from the officers to go on voluntary retirement was large in number and if all the officers are allowed to avail these benefits, it will paralyse the entire administration. Further, in so far as the sick leave is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent-bank submitted the stand of the respondents, that it was generally found that most of the sick leave had travail grounds without valid reasons though supported by medical certificates. Further, in so far as the sick leave is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent-bank submitted the stand of the respondents, that it was generally found that most of the sick leave had travail grounds without valid reasons though supported by medical certificates. In so far as the medical leave, the stand of the bank is that the same is available on two levels : (1) the entire amount reimbursable on production of bills or self declaration and another is reimbursement of hospitalisation expenses. The bank has permitted to opt for hospitalisation expenses. However, allowing the entire lumpsum amount at the beginning of the year itself is not permitted. It was the further case of the respondent-bank that provision of uninterrupted customer service is the prime responsibility of the bank and therefore the bank has to make other alternate arrangements by posting reasonable substitutes for the VRS optees. Therefore, the measures taken by the bank for VRS optees is rational and not arbitrary. The said reason adduced by the respondent-bank in denying the benefits to the officers who have opted to go on voluntary retirement cannot be acceptable in the eye of law more particularly, when the service regulations entitle those officers for the benefits like sick leave, LFC and medical aid and when the bank introduced the voluntary retirement scheme, did not put these officers on notice indicating that in the event if they are allowed to go on voluntary retirement, those benefits will not be given to them and inspite of such notice they have opted to go for voluntary retirement. Further, as per the scheme itself, only options have been called for from the officers who want to go on voluntary retirement as per the scheme. It is for the bank to either accept or not to accept such options since in the very scheme itself, it has been specifically stated that the actual implementation will depend on the number of applications that are received, availability of funds and other considerations and the modalities of the implementation of the scheme shall be finalised by the appropriate Authority. Therefore, it is for the bank to either accept or refuse to accept the options exercised by the officers to go on voluntary retirement. Therefore, it is for the bank to either accept or refuse to accept the options exercised by the officers to go on voluntary retirement. In the event, the options exercised by the officers are accepted by the bank, it is needless to mention that the respondent-bank shall make available the benefits like sick leave, LFC and medical aid to such officers as per the regulationsIn so far as the sick leave is concerned, the apprehension of the respondent-bank is that, most of the sick leave is availed on trivial grounds without valid reasons, though supported by medical certificates. When such claims are made, it is for the respondent-bank to satisfy itself as to the genuineness of the claim not only for sick leave, but also for other benefits like LFC, medical aid. However, that cannot be a reason for totally denying the entitlement of the officers to those benefits. Therefore, the said reason adduced by the respondent-bank cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the contentions made by the respondent and I find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner association in view of my above finding. In view of my above findings, the writ petition is allowed and it is declared that the members of the petitioner association who have opted to go on voluntary retirement scheme under Indian Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 are also entitled to sick leave, LFC and medical aid in the event if their options are accepted by the respondent-bank. I also make it clear that it is open to the respondent-bank to consider the genuineness of the claims made by the officers in respect of sick leave, LFC and medical aid. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 1178 of 2001 is closed.