Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. The writ petitioners have filed this appeal. They, pursuant to Ext. P3, opted to retire voluntarily from the services of Bank of India. Ext.P3 is a scheme promulgated by the Bank of India. It is known as Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme. It has been provided in the said scheme, in clause 5.3 (ii) thereof, that an employee whose application for voluntary retirement is accepted and relieved from the bank shall be eligible for “own contribution of provident fund and pension in terms of Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995” in the case of those “Who have opted for pension and have put in 20 completed years of service in the Bank.” Chapter V of the Pension Regulations, 1995 deals with classes of pension. Clause 28 thereof refers to superannuation pension and clause 29 with its sub clause refers to pension on voluntary retirement. 2. Ext. P3 is a special scheme for voluntary retirement, which refers to the applicability of Pension Regulation 1995, which is made applicable to those who opt for pension. Necessarily the clause applicable for computation of pension to those who opt for voluntarily retirement in terms of Ext. P3 shall be clause 29 of the Pension Regulations 1995. It provides in sub clause (5) that “the qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation.” 3. It is with this hope that they will get the pension benefit, taking note of sub clause (5) of clause 29 of the Pension Regulation which is made applicable in terms of clause 5(3) (ii) of Ext. P3 Voluntary Retirement Scheme, that the writ petitioners/appellants applied for voluntary retirement and opted for pension. All of them have undisputedly more than 20 years of completed service. But this benefit of sub clause (5) extracted above is declined to them based on Ext. P5, which modifies Ext. P3. This modiciation makes clause 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 inapplicable to the class of persons like the petitioners. According to them Ext. All of them have undisputedly more than 20 years of completed service. But this benefit of sub clause (5) extracted above is declined to them based on Ext. P5, which modifies Ext. P3. This modiciation makes clause 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 inapplicable to the class of persons like the petitioners. According to them Ext. P5 had been issued far later than their option for voluntary retirement and just a day previous to the date fixed for acceptance of their such option. It is also submitted by them that they could not withdraw in the wake of Ext.P5 which affects adversely their request for voluntary retirement, because of clause 7.1 of Ext.P3, which provides that request for voluntary retirement once made cannot be withdrawn. Therefore in the writ petition they have also challenged Ext. P5 and sought for the pension payable to them taking into account sub clause 5 of clause 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 4. The learned single Judge did not grant this benefit on the reason that “rule 29(5) will apply only to those retiring voluntarily under this Regulations” and not to those who retire in terms of Ext.P3. According to us this conclusion is not justified because the persons like the writ petitioners opted for Voluntary Retirement in terms of the scheme announced in Ext.P3 which made the Pension Regulation 1995 applicable to grant pension. When they are seeking for voluntary retirement in terms of Ext.P3, the corresponding clause that is applicable to them for the purpose of payment of pension and computation of qualifying service shall be clause 29, dealing with the voluntary retirement pension, which includes sub clause 5 thereof for adding advantage of 5 more years subject to the conditions mentioned therein. 5. It is true as contended by the counsel for the respondent bank, the voluntary retirement made mention of in the Pension Regulations and the voluntary retirement sanctioned in terms of Ext.P3 are different. That contention is justified. But when Ext.P3 refers to the Pension Regulations 1995 for the purpose of computation of pension to those who opted for voluntarily retirement under Ext.P3 without any conditions as to the applicability or restriction in application of pension scheme, necessarily whatever available under the Pension Regulations to the voluntarily retired person shall have to be made available to those who retired in terms of Ext.P3 also. In other words Ext.P5 cannot in any way reduce the benefits of those who had opted for voluntary retirement under Ext.P3 before the issuance of Ext.P5. Viewed in that angle necessarily Ext.P5 cannot visit the petitioners adversely to reduce the pension benefits. It will be applicable only to those who have sought for voluntary retirement subsequent to the date of Ext.P5. 6. In so far as writ petitioners/appellants are concerned, they have applied for voluntary retirement which could not have been withdrawn or revoked based on Ext.P3 itself and with the expectation and the real representation made to them that the pension Regulations, 1995 will apply to them. Any modification thereto after submission of the application which cannot be revoked shall not adversely affect them. Naturally we are of the view that the pension payable to the writ petitioners/appellants shall be worked out applying sub clause 5 of clause 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 with its restrictions as contained therein to the effect that the total service cannot exceed any service beyond the period of superannuation or in excess of 33 years. 7. True, we have in our mind, the decision of the Supreme Court pointed out by the counsel for the bank. With reference to the amendment to Ext.P3 scheme effected by Ext.P5, the Supreme Court in civil Appeal No.854/2002 and connected cases observed as follows: “The basic concept of the scheme, therefore, underwent a change which also goes to show that the banks had sought to invoke its power of amending the scheme. Once the scheme is amended and or an apprehension is created in the mind of the employees that they would not even receive the entire benefits as envisaged under the scheme, they were entitled to revoke their offers. Their action in our considered opinion is reasonable. It may be that some of the employees only opted for the provident fund benefit which did not undergo any amendment but the same would not change the attitude on the part of the banks.” This observation was made by the Supreme Court in the wake of the bank resisting the request of the employees to withdraw out of Ext.P3 after realizing the detriment that they have to face in terms of Ext.P5. The Supreme Court therefore opined that the attempt of the employees to withdraw out of the scheme was justified. They had not taken the benefit. The Supreme Court therefore opined that the attempt of the employees to withdraw out of the scheme was justified. They had not taken the benefit. In the case of writ petitioners they have taken the benefit believing the bank and Ext.P3 scheme as contained in para 7.1 that their application for voluntary retirement could not be withdrawn. Necessarily, when they are put in such predicament base on an inability to withdraw their option, they shall necessarily get the benefit that they expected without amendment to Ext.P3. 8. There is a further contention from the appellants side that there was subsequent increase in the rate of interest for the fixed deposit to be made out of the payment arising out of Ext.P3. Fixation of rate of interest is a commercial matter for the bank to decide. It is not a matter for judicial review under Article 226. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants cannot as of right seek enhanced rate of interest. The benefit that may be arising out of this judgment shall be worked out and paid within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appeal is disposed of.