( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondent employee in terms of an earlier decision of the High Court in the case of mohinder Pal Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank, and further directing that the. writ petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as was granted in mohinder Pal Singh case. The question in issue is about the validity of the voluntary Retirement Scheme. The said question stands concluded by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Bank of India v. O. P. Swarnakar. ( 3 ) THE respondent was an employee of State Bank of Patiala. The voluntary Retirement Scheme was floated by the said Bank by Circular No. Per/vrs/48 dated 20-1-2001. The employee could file application for seeking voluntary retirement under the said Scheme between 15-2-2001 and 1-3-2001. The respondent filed such an application on 24-2-2001/26-2-2001. The Scheme was closed on 1-3-2001. The respondent, however, filed an application dated 19-3-2001 withdrawing his application dated 24-2-2001/26-2-2001. Clause 8 of the Scheme reads as under: "8. Other features. The Bank intends to control the outflow of personnel according to its requirements. Towards this end, Bank retains the discretion to limit the number of employees to be allowed to retire in each category of staff viz. officer/clerical-cas/subordinate, to be covered under SBPVRS. As such, the Bank will have the sole discretion as to the acceptance or the rejection of the request for retirement under SBPVRS depending upon the requirements of the Bank. For the purpose of exercising discretion in this regard, categorywise lists of eligible applicants would be prepared in descending order of their age and applications of employees coming in higher age groups above cut-off age would be accepted; the cut-off age in each category will of course depend upon the acceptable number of employees who can be permitted to retire. No voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have come into effect unless the decision of the competent authority has been communicated in writing, which will be conveyed within a maximum period of two months after the date of closure of receipt of applications i. e. 1-3-2001. No voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have come into effect unless the decision of the competent authority has been communicated in writing, which will be conveyed within a maximum period of two months after the date of closure of receipt of applications i. e. 1-3-2001. " ( 4 ) IN the aforesaid decision the validity of the Scheme formulated by the nationalised banks as also by State Bank of India and State Bank of Patiala came up for consideration. In respect of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme formulated by State Bank of India, it was held that the same stands slightly on a different footing. The reasons for the difference are contained in para 70 (SCC para 92) of the decision which reads as under: "70 (92 ). However, the case of State Bank of India stands slightly on a different footing. Firstly, State Bank of India had not amended the scheme. It, as noticed hereinbefore, even permitted withdrawal of the application after (sic by) 15th February. The Scheme floated by the State bank of India contained a clause (clause 7) laying down the mode and the manner in which the application for voluntary retirement shall be considered. The relevant clause as referred to hereinbefore creates an enforceable right. In the event State Bank failed to adhere to its preferred policy, the same could have been specifically enforced by a court of law. The same would, therefore, amount to some consideration. " ( 5 ) IN terms of the above, it was held that clause 7 of the Scheme formulated by State Bank of India creates an enforceable right which could be enforced in a court of law. Clause 7 of the Scheme formulated by State bank of India has been reproduced in para 40 of the Report. For all intents and purposes clause 8 as reproduced above is almost identical to clause 7 of the Scheme formulated by State Bank of India. The appeals of State Bank of india have been allowed by a three-Judge Bench decision. We find no distinction between the present case and Bank of India case, though the learned counsel for the respondent admitted otherwise. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed in terms of the decision in Bank of india case and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. Parties left to bear their own costs.