ORDER: The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order of the second respondent made in Per/CKS/83-97, dated 16.1.1997 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to calculate and pay the pension to the petitioner adding five years to the qualifying service. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this case are as follows: The petitioner was directly recruited as an Officer in South India Bank Ltd. After completing nearly ten years of service, he applied for the post of Officer in Vijaya Bank Ltd., which was then a private bank. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Level Officer permanently on 21.4.1975. Vijaya Bank Ltd. was nationalised by Act 40 of 1980; it has, wholly, become an undertaking of the Government of India. Vijaya Bank Officers Service Regulations made by the Board of Director of Vijaya Bank were made applicable to all the Officers of the bank who were serving at the time of taking over by the Government. After completing nearly 21 years and 4 months of service in Vijaya Bank, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation in December, 1996 and hence he was retired on 31.12.1996. On his retirement, he became eligible for pension as per the provisions of Vijaya Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995, which came into force on 29.9.1995; these regulations were approved by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India as also by the Reserve Bank of India. The Regulations were made applicable to all the employees who were in service on the notified date, namely, 29.9.1995, provided they exercise their option to come under Pension Regulations. The petitioner had opted to come under Pension Regulations. Regulation 26 of the Pension Regulations provides for addition to qualifying service in certain special circumstances. The Regulations were made applicable to all the employees who were in service on the notified date, namely, 29.9.1995, provided they exercise their option to come under Pension Regulations. The petitioner had opted to come under Pension Regulations. Regulation 26 of the Pension Regulations provides for addition to qualifying service in certain special circumstances. According to that regulation “An employee shall be eligible to add to his qualifying service for superannuation/pension the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of his service or the actual period by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded the upper age limit specified by the Bank for direct recruitment or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or post to which the employee is appointed is one - (a) for which post-graduate research, or specialist qualification or experience in scientific technological, or professional fields, is essential; and (b) to which candidates of age exceeding the upper age limit specified for direct recruitment are normally recruited? (c) for which the candidate was given age relaxation over and above the maximum age limit fixed by the Bank on account of his possessing higher qualifications or experience. Provided that this concession shall not be admissible to an employee unless his actual qualifying service at the time he quits the service in the Bank is not less than 10 years; Provided further that this concession shall be admissible if the recruitment rules in respect of the said service or post contain specific provision that the service or post is one which carries benefit of this regulation: Provided also that the recruitment rules in respect of any service or post which carries the benefit of this regulation shall be made with the approval of the Central Government. ” The petitioner is entitled for an addition of five years to his actual length of service, since the petitioner was appointed giving age relaxation and on account of his previous experience. The upper age limit for the direct recruitment as Junior Level Officer was 25. But, he was 39 on the date of his appointment. Only by relaxing the upper age limit, the petitioner was appointed in Vijaya Bank. The upper age limit for the direct recruitment as Junior Level Officer was 25. But, he was 39 on the date of his appointment. Only by relaxing the upper age limit, the petitioner was appointed in Vijaya Bank. When the petitioner claimed five years of additional qualifying service as per Regulation 26, the Bank rejected his claim by letter dated 16.1.1997, stating as follows: “This is with reference to your letter dated 31.12.1996 and we regret to inform you that as per Clause ‘C of the Pension Regulation you were not eligible for additional 5 years of qualifying service since your recruitment was not made with the approval of Central Government.” According to the petitioner, the order rejecting his claim is not legally sustainable and hence this writ petition to quash that order. 3. A counter has been filed by the third respondent, in which it is stated that the petitioner joined duty on 7.8.1975. The petitioner does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Regulation 26 and therefore he would not be eligible for any additional qualifying service for superannuation/pension. The upper age limit in 1975 for direct recruitment as Junior Level Officer was 35 and not 25 as stated by the petitioner. Further, Regulation 26(a) would be applicable only if the service or post is one for which certain special qualification or experience - scientific, technological or professional field is essential; the post to which he was appointed never required any special qualification or experience. The petitioner does not qualify to get the benefits of Regulation 26. The second proviso to Regulation 26 would apply only if the recruitment rules contained specific provisions that the service or post is one which carries benefit of this regulation. Neither the earlier Rules, under which the petitioner was recruited, nor the present Rules stipulate that the post of “Officer” shall carry the benefit of Regulation 26. The third proviso stipulates that the benefit would apply only if the recruitment rules in respect of service or post, which carries the benefit of this regulation, were made with the approval of the Central government. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal. 4. The third proviso stipulates that the benefit would apply only if the recruitment rules in respect of service or post, which carries the benefit of this regulation, were made with the approval of the Central government. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal. 4. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner in which it is stated that the advertisement calling for applications for the post of Branch Managers stated that those who have worked as Branch Manager will be preferred, age not exceeding 3 5 years, but relaxable upto 40 years in exceptional cases. Further, at the time when he was appointed, there was no pension regulations; it came into force only in the year 1995. Clause ‘c’ of Regulation 26 is distinct and separate from clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in Vijaya Bank after relaxing the upper age limit prescribed for appointment of an Officer in the bank. Therefore he is eligible for the benefits conferred under Regulation 26 of the Pension Regulations. Regulation 26 is addition to qualifying service in special circumstances. The addition of qualifying service could be made is only when a person is appointed by direct recruitment though he exceeded the upper age limit fixed by the bank. Yet, this could be done only under certain circumstances. Firstly, if the service or post to which the employee is appointed is one - for which Post Graduate Research or specialist qualification or experience in Scientific Technological or Professional field is essential; and to which candidates of age exceeding the upper age limit specified for direct recruitment are normally recruited; Secondly, if the service or post to which the employee is appointed is one - for which the candidate was given age relaxation over and above the maximum age limit fixed by the Bank on account of his possessing higher qualifications or experience. This Regulation 26 should be read only as stated above. But in this Regulation, the word “and” is used after clause ‘a’ and therefore the first condition would include clause ‘b’ also. Therefore, the first category is a category which contains both sub-clause ‘a’ and ‘b’; the second category is a category which contains sub-clause ‘c’ alone. This Regulation 26 should be read only as stated above. But in this Regulation, the word “and” is used after clause ‘a’ and therefore the first condition would include clause ‘b’ also. Therefore, the first category is a category which contains both sub-clause ‘a’ and ‘b’; the second category is a category which contains sub-clause ‘c’ alone. That is, where an employee is appointed giving age relaxation, when he had already crossed the maximum age limit fixed by the bank, he is entitled to the additional qualifying service, provided under Regulation 26. It is not necessary that in such case that employee must possess Post Graduate Research or specialist qualification or scientific Or technological experience, etc. Therefore, the claim of the respondent that Regulation 26 is not applicable to the petitioner is not correct. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Regulation 26 contains certain provisos. Therefore, the proviso must also be read together. The third proviso provides that recruitment rules in respect of any service or post which carries the benefit of this regulation shall be made with the approval of the Central Government. Only when recruitment rules have been approved by the Central Government, Regulation 26 is applicable. But in this case, the rules have not been approved by the Central Government and therefore Regulation 26 is not applicable to the petitioner. 7. Before considering the rival contentions of the counsel, it is necessary to see the contents of the impugned order. By the impugned order, the petitioner’s request was rejected on the ground that the petitioner’s "recruitment was not made with the approval of the Central Government" (Italics supplied). Therefore, the reason given for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that his "recruitment" was not made with the approval of the Central Government and nothing else. Admittedly, when the petitioner was appointed as Officer in the year 1975, Vijaya Bank was only a private bank. Therefore, the question of his being recruited with the approval of the Central Government does not arise. Hence, the reason stated in the impugned order cannot be legally sustained. On this simple ground alone this writ petition is liable to be allowed. 8. Therefore, the question of his being recruited with the approval of the Central Government does not arise. Hence, the reason stated in the impugned order cannot be legally sustained. On this simple ground alone this writ petition is liable to be allowed. 8. Since the arguments have been advanced both by the petitioner and also by the respondents with respect to Regulation 26 and since there are certain ambiguity found in Regulation 26, this Court is of the view that this ambiguity must be cleared. Hence, those arguments are also considered. 9. A proviso is an exception or additional requirement to the main rule; it carves out a field to which the main provision would not apply; the proviso can only be subsidiary in nature, and it cannot be contradictory to the main rule. In other words, the proviso cannot be such as to directly oppose to the main provision. Bearing this in mind, when the regulation is considered, it would be seen that sub-clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’ of the main provision would go together and subclause ‘c’ would stand separate. There is some defect in the drafting of the regulations. Unless it is read in that manner, this regulation will not give any meaning. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the addition of qualifying service would be given to any service or post for which the Post Graduate Research or experience etc. is required and normally, candidates of age exceeding the upper age limit are appointed. The other category where addition of qualifying service could be given is where the candidate was given age relaxation over and above the maximum age limit fixed by the bank on account of his possessing higher qualification or experience. Therefore, Clauses ‘a’, ‘b’ and V cannot be read together; clauses ‘a’ and ‘b’ forms one category and ‘c’ forms a separate category. 10. The petitioner has also filed the advertisement calling for applications, in response to which, the petitioner applied and was appointed. In the advertisement it is stated as follows:- "Applicants must be graduates (preferably with additional qualification of CAIIB) having minimum experience of five years as an officer in a Commercial Bank. 10. The petitioner has also filed the advertisement calling for applications, in response to which, the petitioner applied and was appointed. In the advertisement it is stated as follows:- "Applicants must be graduates (preferably with additional qualification of CAIIB) having minimum experience of five years as an officer in a Commercial Bank. Those who have worked as Branch Managers will be preferred......." Age not exceeding 35 years as on 1st February, 1975, but relaxable upto 40 years in exceptional cases." From this it is seen that the age limit was 35 years, but in exceptional cases it was relaxed upto 40 years. Admittedly, the petitioner was aged about 39 years on the date of appointment. He, presumably, was appointed only after relaxing the upper age limit and also has been preferred since he had ten years of experience in some other commercial bank on the date of his application. Therefore, he was appointed giving age relaxation. Hence, sub-clause ‘c’ of Regulation 26 directly applies to the petitioner. Therefore, he would be eligible for additional qualifying service provided under Regulation 26. 11. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the third proviso would make the petitioner ineligible for this benefit on the ground that his post or service was not made with the approval of the Central Govenment. 12. Admittedly, Vijaya Bank was nationalised in the year 1980 and even on that date there was no pension regulations. Pension Regulations came into force only in the year 1995. Therefore, prior to 1995, there were no rules providing for such benefits. Therefore, this proviso would be redundant in so far the employees who were in service on the date when the pension regulations came into force. At the most, it would be applicable only to the employees who were subsequently employed. This regulation confers the benefit for the first time in the year 1995; a maximum of five years of qualifying service is added for certain category of persons. That cannot be nullified by the proviso. That is, the main proviso gives the benefit to a class of persons, and that benefit cannot be nullified by the third proviso. This regulation confers the benefit for the first time in the year 1995; a maximum of five years of qualifying service is added for certain category of persons. That cannot be nullified by the proviso. That is, the main proviso gives the benefit to a class of persons, and that benefit cannot be nullified by the third proviso. In as much as third proviso would nullify the benefit conferred under the main Regulation 26 in so far it relates to the employees who are already in service (when the petitioner entered into service there were no pension at all). Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits conferred under Regulation 26. 13. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and hence it is quashed. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted, even assuming that this Regulation is applicable to the petitioner, he would not be entitled for five years of added service, but would be eligible only for four years in view of the fact that he was exceeding only by four years than the upper age limit prescribed when he was appointed. In so far as this aspect is concerned, it is for the authorities to consider this aspect and to decide whether to add five years or four years. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Considering the long number of years of delay, the respondents shall pass orders within a period of three months from today. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.23065 of 1997 is closed.