Judgment : ASIT KUMAR BISI, J. (1.) This appeal preferred by the appellant United Bank of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th February, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.490 of 2002. (2.) The facts leading to filing of the instant appeal may briefly be narrated thus. The writ petitioner Pijush Kanti Nandy joined the service of the United Bank of India on 14th July, 1971. In view of his failing health on 13th February, 1989 the petitioner applied to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank seeking voluntary retirement after having attained the age of 55 years. While making the said application for voluntary retirement the petitioner gave more than three months notice to the Bank as required under the rule. The Bank authority favourably considered the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement and accepted the same. Accordingly the petitioner retired on 31st May, 1989. (3.) The age of the petitioner as on 31st May, 1989 was 55 years 21 days. If the petitioner has not been permitted to retire voluntarily in accordance with the service rules he could serve upto the age of 58 years. If his voluntary retirement had not been accepted, the petitioner could serve the Bank for 2 years 11 months and 9 days more. (4.) On 19th October, 1990 the Pension Scheme was introduced in R.B.I., with effect from 1st January, 1986. The pensionary benefits available to the employees of the United Bank of India are contained in the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the said Pension Regulations) which came into force some years after the retirement of the petitioner. Those regulations had, however, been given retrospective effect and the same had been made applicable to the employees who had retired from service of the Bank on or after 1st January, 1986. Since the petitioner was in service of the Bank on 1st January, 1986 and had retired in 1989 he was covered by the said Pension Regulations. (5.) The contents of the said Pension Regulations are identical with the regulations introduced by Canara Bank in similar circumstances. The regulations provide that the same shall be effective on and from 1st January, 1986. However, clause 29 thereof was intended to apply with effect from 1st November, 1993. Clause 29 dealt with those employees who retired voluntarily. (5.) The contents of the said Pension Regulations are identical with the regulations introduced by Canara Bank in similar circumstances. The regulations provide that the same shall be effective on and from 1st January, 1986. However, clause 29 thereof was intended to apply with effect from 1st November, 1993. Clause 29 dealt with those employees who retired voluntarily. The employees of Canara Bank who voluntarily retired prior to 1st November, 1993 but after 1st January, 1986 challenged legality of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations made by Canara Bank in the writ jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court. (6.) In such litigation the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court held that discriminating employees on the basis of the requirement i.e. upon attaining the age of superannunation and upon acceptance of voluntary retirement was not permissible. The learned Judge saved the said clause 29 by reading 1st January, 1986 instead of 1st November, 1993 in the said Pension Regulations. The aforementioned decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court and the matter ultimately went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that the view taken by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court was fair and reasonable. (7.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims pension in terms of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations and the relevant portion of clause 29 read in the manner as has been read by the Karnataka High Court and as confirmed by the Supreme Court reads as follows : "On or after 1st January, 1986 at any time after an employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than 3 months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service." (8.) The Bank authority refused to grant pension to the petitioner under clause 29 on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 20 years of service at the time he retired. (9.) The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition in the following manner as quoted below : "Having regard to the fact that taking into account the period of service rendered while on duty, being 17 years 10 months and 17 days, and period to be taken note of as qualifying service as provided for in sub-clause (5) of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations, being 2 years 11 months and 9 days, the qualifying service as mentioned in sub-clause (1) of clause 29 of the said regulations amounts to 20 years 9 months and 26 days and, accordingly, it is declared that in terms of clause 29 of the said regulations, the petitioner is entitled to pension for having had voluntarily retired on the date mentioned above. In those circumstances the writ petition is allowed and the respondent-employer is directed to make available to the petitioner pension after permitting the petitioner to comply with his part of the obligations under the regulations. The respondent-employer shall invite the petitioner to do so by issuing an appropriate notice to that effect as quickly as possible but not later than 1 month from today. The petitioner shall comply with such obligations forthwith thereafter but not later than 1 month therefrom and within 2 months therefrom the respondent bank shall make available to the petitioner the pension to the extent he is entitled to in terms of the said regulations. This disposes of the writ petition." (10.) Aggrieved, the United Bank of India preferred the instant appeal assailing the findings of the learned Single Judge. (11.) Appearing for the appellant Mr. Maloy Kumar Basu, learned Senior Advocate has very fairly conceded at the outset that the said Pension Regulations, 1995 have been given retrospective effect from 1st January, 1986 and in view of the settled legal position clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations is given retrospective effect from the said date i.e. 1st January, 1986. Mr. Basu has urged that in terms of clause 29(1) of the said Pension Regulations an employee of the Bank is entitled to get pension on voluntary retirement if he has completed 20 years of qualifying service and gives notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority for his voluntary retirement from service. Mr. Basu has urged that in terms of clause 29(1) of the said Pension Regulations an employee of the Bank is entitled to get pension on voluntary retirement if he has completed 20 years of qualifying service and gives notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority for his voluntary retirement from service. It has been further urged by him that the learned Single Judge erred in law in not considering that clause 29(5) of the said Pension Regulations contemplates increase in the qualifying service by a period not exceeding 5 years, thereby necessarily meaning increase in the qualifying service of an employee after he becomes eligible for pension on voluntary retirement only after completion of 20 years of qualifying service. Mr. Basu has argued that in the instant case the writ petitioner/respondent did not complete 20 years of qualifying service as envisaged in clause 29(1) of the said Pension Regulations and as such he is not entitled to get pension on voluntary retirement. He has further contended that since the writ petitioner/respondent has not completed 20 years of qualifying service in terms of clause 29(1), as noted hereinbefore, sub-clause (5) of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations which contemplates increase in the qualifying service by a period not exceeding 5 years has no manner of application in the instant case. As argued by him, the learned Single Judge erred in law in taking note of the period of 2 years 11 months and 9 days as qualifying service as provided in sub-clause (5) of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations in order to complete 20 years of qualifying service of the writ petitioner/respondent and also in declaring that in terms of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations the writ petitioner is entitled to get pension for having had voluntarily retired on the date mentioned above. (12.) Mr. Arunava Ghosh, the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner/ respondent has opposed the abovenoted contentions raised by Mr. Basu on behalf of the appellant and supported the findings of the learned Single Judge. He has drawn our attention to the fact that on 13th February, 1989 the respondent sent application to the Bank authority seeking voluntary retirement after attaining the age of 55 years on 10th May, 1989 and the said application for voluntary retirement was duly accepted by the Bank authority. He has drawn our attention to the fact that on 13th February, 1989 the respondent sent application to the Bank authority seeking voluntary retirement after attaining the age of 55 years on 10th May, 1989 and the said application for voluntary retirement was duly accepted by the Bank authority. It has been contended by Mr. Ghosh that in terms of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations the writ petitioner/respondent is entitled to get pension on voluntary retirement. He has urged that in terms of sub-clause (5) of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations the said respondent is entitled to qualifying service of 2 years 11 months and 9 days in addition to the actual service rendered by him for the period of 17 years 10 months and 17 days and thus the total period of qualifying service of the said respondent is 20 years 9 months and 26 days. He has further submitted that the expression qualifying service as used in sub-clause (1) of clause 29 and sub-clause (5) of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations has been used for a definite purpose and 5 years of qualifying service as provided for in sub-clause (5) of clause 29 must be taken note of at the time of considering qualifying service as mentioned in sub-clause (1) of clause 29. (13.) We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by Mr. Basu on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Ghosh on behalf of the writ petitioner/respondent and considered the materials on record. Indisputable is the fact that the writ petitioner/respondent joined the service of the appellant Bank on 14th July, 1971 and his application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Bank authority and he voluntarily retired from the service of the appellant Bank on 31st May, 1989. As mentioned hereinbefore, an employee of the Bank is entitled to get pension on voluntary retirement on or after 1st January, 1986 if he has completed 20 years of qualifying service and gives notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority for his voluntary retirement from service. This position is well-settled and in the present case in terms of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations the writ petitioner/ respondent is entitled to get pension on voluntary retirement provided he completed 20 years of qualifying service. This position is well-settled and in the present case in terms of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations the writ petitioner/ respondent is entitled to get pension on voluntary retirement provided he completed 20 years of qualifying service. Chapter IV of the said Pension Regulations relates to qualifying service and clause 14 thereof lays down that subject to the other conditions contained in these regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension. As defined in clause 2(k) of the said Pension Regulations, date of retirement obviously includes the date on which the employee voluntarily retires. Retirement as defined in clause 2(y) of the said Pension Regulations includes cessation from Banks service on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in Regulation 29 of these regulations and it has been so stipulated in clause 2(y)(b) of the said Pension Regulations. (14.) As defined in clause 2(w) of the said Pension Regulations, qualifying service means the service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pension under these regulations. So when the expression qualifying service is used it is clearly intended that the same will not only be restricted to duty actually rendered but will also include those which have been specifically provided otherwise in the said Pension Regulations. Clause 29(1) of the said Pension Regulations nowhere indicates that an employee in order to get pension on voluntary retirement would be required to complete 20 years of service while on duty. The said clause clearly denotes that 20 years of qualifying service. That would include the duty actually rendered and also other period as provided for in the regulations which should be taken into account. This aspect of the matter has rightly been pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that the expression qualifying service has been consciously used in the clause in question and not the expression service. This aspect of the matter has rightly been pointed out by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge that the expression qualifying service has been consciously used in the clause in question and not the expression service. (15.) As already indicated, clause 29(5) of the said Pension Regulations clearly provides 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. In the instant case, we find that the period of service rendered by the writ petitioner/respondent while on duty was 17 years 10 months and 17 days and in terms of sub-clause (5) of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations the additional period to be taken note of as qualifying service would be 2 years 11 months and 9 days and so the period of qualifying service of the said respondent in terms of sub-clause (1) of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations amounts to 20 years 9 months and 26 days. Having regard to the materials on record and the relevant provisions of the said Pension Regulations as referred to above we are clearly of the view that in terms of clause 29 of the said Pension Regulations the writ petitioner/respondent is entitled to get pension for having had voluntarily retired on 31st May, 1989. (16.) For the foregoing reasons the findings of the learned Single Judge cannot be interfered with. The instant appeal is devoid of merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.