V. S. SIRPURKAR, CJ. ( 1 ) AN order-cum-Judgment by the learned single judge of this Court allowing the writ petition at the motion hearing stage itself is in challenge in this appe:al. In that, the learned Judge has directed the original respondent, Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called the 'bank' for short) to release the retirement benefits in terms of the Pension Scheme opted by the petitioner at the time of the submission of the proposal for voluntary retirement. The Bank was directed to comply with the order within one month failing which an interest at the rate of 18% per annum an the amount would be payable to the petitioners. Following factual mattrix will help us understand the controversy involved. Contention in Writ Petition ( 2 ) THE respondents Nos. l to 8 herein, being the retired Bank Officers working in the Punjab National Bank, along with their Representative association, respondent No. 9, filed this writ petition praying, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus commanding; the Banks Authority to release the pensionary benefits in favour of the eight petitioners therein and the concerned members of the petitioner No. 9 Association on the basis of Regulation 29 (5) of Pension Regulations applicable to the Bank. In addition to that, the petitioners also claimed the differential amount on account of commutation pension as also the arrears of the pension on the basis of the calculations made in terms of Regulation 29 (5 ). Interest of 21% on the arrears was also prayed for. Shortly stated, the case of the petitioners was that the petitioners Nos. l to 8 and the other concerned members of the Association, petitioner No. 9, were working in the different branches and had put in substantial number of years of service. While so working, they received an offer of a Scheme called, pnb Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 on 29. 9. 2000. The scheme was to remain in operation on 1. 11. 2000 to 30. 11. 2000 and under the said Scheme, all permanent and full time employees of the bank were eligible to seek voluntary retirement provided they fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In that Scheme, only the oflicers who had put in minimum 15 years of service or who were 40 years of age, were liable to take part. 11. 2000 to 30. 11. 2000 and under the said Scheme, all permanent and full time employees of the bank were eligible to seek voluntary retirement provided they fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In that Scheme, only the oflicers who had put in minimum 15 years of service or who were 40 years of age, were liable to take part. The employees seeking the voluntary retirement under the Scheme were to be entitled to ex-gratia amount mentioned in paragraph 3. 3 of the offer or the Scheme. It was as under: "3. 3. Amount of Ex-Gratia (Para 6 of the Scheme)An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme will be entitled to the ex-gratia amount mentioned in para (a) or (b), whichever is less: a) 60 days salary (pay plus stagnation increments plus special pay plus clearness relief) for each completed year of service; b) Salary for the number of months service left. " 2. 1. Clause 3. 5 of the Scheme was as under: "3. 5. Other Benefits (Para 7 of the Scheme)An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the schme will be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia amount mentioned para O of the scheme. i) Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or Gratuity payable under the Service Rules as the case may be as per existing rules; ii) a) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per PNB (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. OR b) Bank's contribution towards PF as per existing rules, iii) Leave encashment as per exijsting rules. " ( 3 ) THE petitioners, therefore, redied on clause 3. 5 (ii) and claimed in the writ petition that they were entitled to pension as per the PNB (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The petitioners then pointed out that they all opted for the voluntary retirement and their offer was accepted by the Bank. Under the aforementioned clause 3. 5 (ii), they were entitled to the pension under the PNB Employees) Pension regulations, 1995. Accordingly, their pension was liable to be calculated taking into account and on the basis of Regulation 29 (5) of the Punjab national Bank Officer Employees' Regulations. They pointed out that it was on this basis that they accepted the scheme and while calculating their pension as per the Pension Scheme, Regulation (5) could not have been ignored. Accordingly, their pension was liable to be calculated taking into account and on the basis of Regulation 29 (5) of the Punjab national Bank Officer Employees' Regulations. They pointed out that it was on this basis that they accepted the scheme and while calculating their pension as per the Pension Scheme, Regulation (5) could not have been ignored. The Bank, however, did not calculate the pension on the basis of Regulation 29 generally and more particularly, sub-regulation (5)thereof. Regulation 29 is under chapter V, which pertains to 'classes of Pension'. Regulation 29 pertains to 'pension on Voluntary retirement'. The whole Regulation 29 runs as under: "29 Pension on Voluntary Retirement 1) On or after the 1st day of November, 1993, at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service; provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year: provided further that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement: provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with clause (1) of regulation 2. 2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority; provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. 2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority; provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. 3) a) An employee referred to in sub-regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor; b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (2), consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employees shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months. 4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this regulation and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded fram withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority; provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. 5) 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. 6) The pension of an employee retiring under this regulation shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d)of regulation 2 of these regulations and the increase, not exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension. 6) The pension of an employee retiring under this regulation shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d)of regulation 2 of these regulations and the increase, not exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension. " ( 4 ) RELYING heavily on Regulation 29 generally and more particularly on 29 (5), the petitioners claimed that they were bound to be given the advantage of the addition of five years of qualifying service so that their pension was calculated not only on the basis of the actual number of years put in by them, but the years of qualifying service were liable to be added with five years more subject, of course, to the condition that the total qualifying years of service would not exceed 33 years. They pointed out that this benefit was refused by the Bank. It was pointed out further that though the other monetary benefits under the voluntary Retirement Scheme were released, the pensionary benefits in terms of Pension Regulation were not released and the quantum of pension fixed by the Bank was much lesser than their entitlement. Their complaint was that their pension which was bound to be calculated on the basis of Regulation 29, was, instead, calculated on the basis of Regulation 28 which pertains to 'superannuation Pension'. They pointed out that on the date when the offers of the VRS were accepted, the Regulation 28 was as under: "28. Superannuation Pension superannuation pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining the age of superannuation specified in the service Regulations or Settlements. " 4. 1. They further point out that a proviso dated 8. 4. 2002 was thereafter added after two years of the offers having been accepted, which was as under: "provided that, with effect from 1st Sept. , 2000 pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any Scheme that may be framed for such purpose by the Board with the approval of the Government. , 2000 pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, but after rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any Scheme that may be framed for such purpose by the Board with the approval of the Government. " ( 5 ) ON this basis, the petitioners pointed out that before the amendment to the Pension Scheme was made, the Bank had already accepted the offers of voluntary retirement and, therefore, by a subsequent amendment, the petitioners could not be deprived of what was already granted to them under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. They pointed out that in comparison to Regulation 29, the subsequent amendment would result into harsh effects of depriving them of five years of qualifying service and limit their qualifying years of service to the actual years of service rendered fby them. A reference is made in the writ petition to the Notification dated 27. 3. 2002 by which regulation 28 came to be amended whereby the proviso above-quoted was added. ( 6 ) THE petitioners also pleaded that this amendment was being misunderstood and mis-interpreted by Bank and in fact, the objects of the said amendment were (i) to provide pensionary benefits to the voluntarily retired employees who had put in more than 15 years but less than 20 years of service and (ii) not to affect the entitlement of any employee to receive pension in terms of the Voluntary Retirement scheme and under the Pension Regulations as stood before the amendment. Thus the petitioners found fault with the aforementioned amendment and pointed out that under the guise of the amendment, the Bank could not be allowed to deprive the petitioners the benefit of five years of qualifying service, finding of the Trial Judge ( 7 ) WHEN this matter came up before the learned single Judge for motion Hearing, the Bank authorities prayed for an opportunity to file the affidavit-in-opposition. However, the request was turned down by the learned Judge on the ground that the writ application was based on the sole question whether any retrospective effect could be given to a pension scheme to deal with the pension amount of the employees concerned who had retired long back on accepting the prevalent conditions at the material time. However, the request was turned down by the learned Judge on the ground that the writ application was based on the sole question whether any retrospective effect could be given to a pension scheme to deal with the pension amount of the employees concerned who had retired long back on accepting the prevalent conditions at the material time. It was observed by the learned Judge that, in fact, the said amendment did not have a retrospective effect since the amendment was to come into force on the date of publication in the Official Gazette and it was, in fact, published in the Gazette on 8. 4. 2002, that is almost after two years after the offer of the voluntary retirement was accepted by the Bank. The learned Judge simply held that there could not have been any such amendment after the offer of voluntary retirement was accepted to tinker with the pension benefits earned by the employees. The learned Judge also held that on the day when the offer for voluntary retirement was accepted, the petitioners were legally entitled to receive the pension in terms of Regulation 29 and, therefore, the advantage of Regulation 29 (5) was also available to them. In short, the learned Judge held that the advantage which became available, could not be withdrawn by a subsequent amendment. In that view, the writ petition was allowed in the Motion Hearing itself. It is this order-cum-Judgment, which is being challenged in the present appeal. Contentions of Appellant Bank ( 8 ) SHRI Moloy Bose. senior advocate, appearing on behalf of the bank assailed this order firstly on the: ground that the learned Judge should have given an opportunity to the Bank at least to file an Affidavit in-Opposition so that number of factual aspects could have been highlighted and brought before the Court. He pointed out that all the petitioners had offered to join the voluntary retirement scheme which was to operate to 1. 11. 2000 and 30. 11. 2000 and for that purpose filed the application. He further points out that these applications were accepted in the last week of December 2000. However on 11. 12. He pointed out that all the petitioners had offered to join the voluntary retirement scheme which was to operate to 1. 11. 2000 and 30. 11. 2000 and for that purpose filed the application. He further points out that these applications were accepted in the last week of December 2000. However on 11. 12. 2000, the Indian Banks Association had clarified that the employees seeking voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 and who are pension optees under the Pension Regulations 1995, would be eligible for pro-rata pension for a period of service rendered by them and it will be held as if they have retired on attaining the age of superannuation on the date when they were relieved under the voluntary Retirement Scheme. The learned counsel points out further that this clarification was made as various Banks had raised a query under which regulation, such employees should be paid pension since the eligibility criteria prescribed undjer Regulation 29, was minimum 20 years of service (in comparison to 15 years of service as required under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme ). This advice was given in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. The learned counsel then points out that on 19. 12. 2000, the appellant Bank had issued a circular to all the offices with the approval of Chairman and Managing Director advising them that the employees opting for voluntary retirement under voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 would be paid pro-rata pension under Regulation 28 pending amendments to the Pension Regulations 1995. It is then pointed out that on 30. 12. 2000, the proposed amendment to Regulation 28 was approved by the Board under section 19 of the banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 1970 and after obtaining the concurrence of the Reserve Bank of India and approval of the Government of India to the proposed amendments, the Board Approved the final amendment to Regulation 28 for notification of the Gazette of India. It is then pointed out that though initially this amendment was kept In abeyance. The amendment to be incorpornted was slightly revised and ultimately that revised amendment was approved by the Board of the Bank on 22. 12. 2001. On 17. 1. 2002 the Reserve Bank of India gave concurrence to the said amendment. On 6. 3. It is then pointed out that though initially this amendment was kept In abeyance. The amendment to be incorpornted was slightly revised and ultimately that revised amendment was approved by the Board of the Bank on 22. 12. 2001. On 17. 1. 2002 the Reserve Bank of India gave concurrence to the said amendment. On 6. 3. 2002, the Government of India gave its approval to the said amendments and so also the Board of Directors of the appellant Bank gave the approval am 23. 3. 2002 and ultimately on 8. 4. 2002, the amendment was notified in the Gazette of India and thus, it became law. It is further contended that this history of concerned amendment of Regulation 28 could not be put before the learned single judge in the absence of Affidavit-in-Opposition nor was it considered. 8. (II) The learned counsel carries his argument further saying that so long as this amendment is not found to be unconstitutional, the pension would be payable only under this amendment and under no other provision. He points out that in the writ petition this amendment has not been assailed in any manner. 8 (III ). It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the Bank employees had known the circular dated 19. 12. 2000 that they would be getting the pension not as per Regulation 29 but a pro-rata pension on the basis of actual service rendered by them. It is further pointed out that there was no question of the Bank making any representation to these employees and in fact, in the voluntary retirement scheme 2000, the only representation which was made by clause 3. 3/3. 5 that the employees would also be entitled to get the pension. However it was nowhere pointed and nowhere promised that such pension would be calculated under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulation Scheme. 8 (IV ). 3/3. 5 that the employees would also be entitled to get the pension. However it was nowhere pointed and nowhere promised that such pension would be calculated under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulation Scheme. 8 (IV ). The learned counsel carries its argument further and suggests that if such amendment had not been made, then actually no pension would have been payable to such employees because the Pension regulation Scheme was silent in respect of such employees who had obtained the voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement scheme 2000 and therefore, it was only in order to enable the Banks to pay the pension to such employees that such provision was introduced and, therefore, there was no question of the employees having any right to get the pension under Regulation 29. 8 (V ). The learned counsel also further suggests that the advantage of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 129 was available to only those employees who had voluntarily retired under Regulation 29, meaning thereby that by giving three months of notice as accepted by the Bank, such was not the case in respect of the present employees, and they could never be deemed to have retired under Regulation 29 and there was no question of application of sub-regulation (5 ). 8 (VI ). Lastly, the learned counsel pointed out that in claiming the advantage of Regulation 29 (5), the petitioners were trying to treat the unequals as the equals inasmuch compared to those who had voluntarily retired under Regulation 29, they were in much better position inasmuch as while retiring under the Voluntary Retirement scheme they got the advantage of true monetary benefits of the salary for which advantage was not available to those who voluntarily retired under Regulation 29. All that such persons got, was the benefit of sub regulation (5) and thereby adding five years to their qualifying service for pension. Therefore, the petitioners could not compare themselves with those employees who voluntarily retired under Regulation 29 and could not claim the only benefit that such employees got, that is of five yers added qualifying service. 8 (VII ). The learned counsel also relied on three Judgments, namely, one unreported decision of this High Court in A. P. O. T. No. 643 of 2004 (United Bank of India and Anr. 8 (VII ). The learned counsel also relied on three Judgments, namely, one unreported decision of this High Court in A. P. O. T. No. 643 of 2004 (United Bank of India and Anr. v. Subhas Chandra De and Ors.), a reported decision of Bombay High Court reported in 2006 (108) FLR 85 (N. Dinakara shetty v. Union of India and Ors.) and another unreported decision of Delhi high Court in W. P. (C) No. 426 of 2002 ]al1 India Punjab and Sind Bank Retired officer's Association and Anr. v. The Union of India and Ann), where a view has been taken that such employees having retired under Voluntary retirement Scheme 2000 cannot claim the pension benefit under regulation 29 (5 ). The learned counsel very fairly pointed out the two other Judgments, one by Kerala High Court and one by the Madras High court which have taken the contrary view. Contention of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 9 (Original Writ Petitioners nos. l to 9) ( 9 ) AS against this, Sri Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employees firstly urged that the aforementioned clarification dated 1. 12. 2000 issued by the Indian Banks Association and the resultant Circular dated 19. 12. 2000 were never made known to the employees in general. He points out that even if this circular was made known, it would have been of no use as the employees could not have withdrawn their offer for joining the Voluntary Retirement scheme 2000, once it was given as per the terms of the VRS itself. 9 (II ). The learned counsel further says that it was clearly mentioned in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and more particularly, in paragraph 3. 5 that employee joining the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 would be paid pension (including commuted value of the pension)as per PNB (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and therefore, there was a clear representation made that such pension would be decided under the provisions of the Pension Regulations applicable to the Bank. On this basis, the learned counsel further says that Regulation 29 was the only provision covering the voluntary retirement by the employees and, therefore, it was obvious that Regulation 29 was to be the only regulation applicable and thereby the benefit under Regulation 29 (5)could not have been denied. 9 (111 ). On this basis, the learned counsel further says that Regulation 29 was the only provision covering the voluntary retirement by the employees and, therefore, it was obvious that Regulation 29 was to be the only regulation applicable and thereby the benefit under Regulation 29 (5)could not have been denied. 9 (111 ). The further basic contention of the learned counsel was that what was granted once, could not be simply taken away, that too on the basis of an amendment made almost two years after the offer of voluntary retirement was accepted by the Bank. 9 (IV ). The counsel further says that the amendment adding the provision to Regulation 28 was clearly prospective in nature and could not apply to the present employees who had retired two years prior to the amendment. According to the learned counsel, the tenor of the language of the amendment clearly suggest that it is prospective and it would have to be interpreted as not being applicable to the present petitioners. 9 (V ). The learned counsel also suggests that even the Bank had not intended in the beginning to deprive such employees of the pension and, therefore, such intention could not be allowed to be defeated by the amendment of Regulation 28. 9 (VI ). The counsel contends that the language of the Circular dated 19. 12. 2000 suggests that the Bank intended to introduce the amendment to Regulation 28 only with a view to deprive the respondents 1 to 9 herein of the benefit under Regulation 29. It is further contended that on acceptance of the offer of the employees a concluded contract came into existence and that could, not have been tinkered with by either party unilaterally except with the consent of the other. A vested right had accrued in favour of the employees to receive pension in terms of Regulation 29 (5) and a subsequent amendment cannot be construed to confer power of the Bank to release pension ignoring the provision of Regulation 29. The learned counsel relies on a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in (2001)3 Supreme Court Cases 110 (O. P. Lather and Ors. v. Satish Kumar Kakkar and Ors. ). 9 (VII ). It is also suggested that once the application under Voluntary retirement Scheme 2000, it was not open to any party to make a claim contrary to the terms accepted. v. Satish Kumar Kakkar and Ors. ). 9 (VII ). It is also suggested that once the application under Voluntary retirement Scheme 2000, it was not open to any party to make a claim contrary to the terms accepted. Far this the learned counsel relies on a decision reported in (2003)11 Supreme Court Cases 572 (Vice-chairman and Managing Director, A P. SIDC Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Varaprasad and Ors. ). 9 (VIII ). The learned counsel also claimed an equity in favour of the employees and against the Bank making the representation and compelled the performance of the obligation arising out of that representation. A reliance was made in a reported decision in AIR 1971 sc 1021 . 9 (IX ). The learned counsel also invited the attention to the language of the Notification dated 27. 3. 2002 issued by the Punjab National Bank and more particularly, to the explanatory memorandum where it was certified in paragraph 3 that no employee/officer of the Punjab National bank was likely to be affected adversely by the notification being given the prospective eflect. Therefore, it was reiterated that the amendment was clearly prospective one and was so intended. The discussions and the findings ( 10 ) THERE can be no dispute that the learned single Judge had decided the issue without giving an opportunity to the Bank for filing of Affidavit-in-Opposition. In our opinion, such opportunity was essential not only on the principle of fairness but also on account of the importance of the subject. Sri Bose was right in contending that such denial of opportunity resulted in some essential facts not being brought before the Court. These facts related to the explanation given by the indian Banks Association dated 11. 12. 2000 as also the Circular dated 19. 12. 2000 issued by the Bank and the Notification dated 27. 3. 2002 whereby Regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations of the Punjab national Bank was amended and a proviso was added to the said regulation. These three documents do not find any reference in the order-cum-Judgment of the learned single Judge and, in our opinion, they were extremely important to resolve the controversy involved. In the first place, these documents would have thrown light on the unusual circumstances under which the aforementioned amendment came to be made. These three documents do not find any reference in the order-cum-Judgment of the learned single Judge and, in our opinion, they were extremely important to resolve the controversy involved. In the first place, these documents would have thrown light on the unusual circumstances under which the aforementioned amendment came to be made. ( 11 ) IT was obvious that under the PNBEVRS-2000, the employees seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme were to be eligible for pension including commuted value off pension as per PNB (Employees)Pension Regulations, 1995. It is clear from the explanation dated 11. 12. 2000 of the Indian Banks Association that not only the present bank but several other Banks were eager to know as to under what provision of the pension regulations such employees would be entitled to be paid the pension. The explanation offered by the Indian Banks association was given after it had taken up the matter with the government of India, Ministry of Finance, Banking Division which had advised all the nationalized banks introducing the voluntary retirement scheme that the employees who were seeking voluntary retirement and are also pension optees under the Pension Regulations 1995 would be eligible for pro-rata pension for a period of service rendered by them as if they retire on attaining the age of superannuation on the date they are relieved under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Indian banks Association has also advised to incorporate the amendment to regulation 28 of the Pension Regulations. Accordingly, the Punjab national Bank also took out a circular dated 19. 12. 2000 and we have no doubts that the circular became kown all over since it was directed to all the offices. Paragraph 5 of the said circular is as under: "5. Accordingly all Incumbents Incharge are advised to ensure: a) That the proposal for payment of pension in respect of the above employees (pension optees) are prepared and sent to Pension fund Deptt. Through respective RO/zo only under Regulation 28 pertaining to superannuation pension. b) That the employees (pension optees) who are seeking voluntary retirement under PNBEVRS - 2000 irrespective of number of years of service they have put in, are eligible for pension as per; Regulation 28 read with the amendment referred to above and not under Regulation 29 of Pension regulations 1995. b) That the employees (pension optees) who are seeking voluntary retirement under PNBEVRS - 2000 irrespective of number of years of service they have put in, are eligible for pension as per; Regulation 28 read with the amendment referred to above and not under Regulation 29 of Pension regulations 1995. " ( 12 ) THIS would suggest that not only the circular was made known to the in-charge of the Bank but they were also specifically instructed to prepare the pension proposals under Regulation 28 and not under regulation 29. Strangely enough, this circular remained unchallenged in the present case, though it was challenged in some other High Courts in respect of some other Banks, On 19. 12. 2000, that is on the day of the circular, the proposals of the employees offering to join Voluntary retirement Scheme 2000 were not finalized. The learned counsel tried to say that this circular was not published or was not made known to each and every employee and, therefore, it could not be said to operative. Two decisions were relied onby Sri Dutta, they being - AIR 1987 supreme Court 1059 (B. K. Srinivasan and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.)and AIR 198 Supreme Court 668 (Collector of Central Excise v. New tobacco Co. etc. etc. }. The reliance was placed on the observations in paragraph 15 of the first referred Judgement to the effect that delegated or subordinate legislation, in order to take effect must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or promulgation as prescribed by the parent statute or not. The Supreme court holds that such subordinate or delegated legislation would only take effect from the date of publication or promulgation. In the second referred Judgment, the observations in paragraph 12 were relied upon where the Supreme Court has observed that a Central Excise notification can be said to have been published when it is made known to the public. The further observation is "it would be a proper publication if it is published in such a manner that persons can, if they are so interested, acquaint themselves with its contents. " here the Supreme Court was considering the effect of publication of Central Excise Notification in the Gazette and it was found that mere publication in a Gazette would not be enough. " here the Supreme Court was considering the effect of publication of Central Excise Notification in the Gazette and it was found that mere publication in a Gazette would not be enough. ( 13 ) THERE can be no question of the principle laid down in these two judgments. However, we find that both the decisions operate in different spheres. What we, are concerned today is as to whether the concerned persons knew about the circular. We are not presently concerned with the effect of those circulars. A circular by its very nature has to be circulated amongst all who are concerned with the same. We have no hesitation in holding that this circular was circulated to all the offices. Therefore, it was natural for the concerned persons to know about it particularly because it pertained to the instructions given to the in-charge officers of various offices to make the proposals of the pension in a particular manner, that is only under Regulation 28 and not under Regulation 29. This circular was not going to decide the fate of the employees. It was merely an information given that such employees who joined the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 would be given the pension not under Regulation 29 but under Regulation 28. We, therefore, refuse to accept the plea for the first time raised in the appeal that the circulars were not made known. After all it was a burning question faced by various Banks as the Banks were in a state of confusion because according to them and, in our opinion rightly the pension Regulations had not made any provision for the employees who had offered to retire under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000. If the promise was given under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme that the employees joining the Voluntary Retirement Scheme would be paid pension as per the pension scheme applicable to the Bank, then there had to be a provision in the said pension scheme. Various Banks had, therefore, raised this question before the Indian Banks Association. A circular touching such a question which was common to all the Banks could not be viewed as a secret document so as to be deliberately kept from reaching the employees or their unions. Therefore, we refuse to believe that the circular dated 19. 12. 2000 could not be made effective because it was not published. A circular touching such a question which was common to all the Banks could not be viewed as a secret document so as to be deliberately kept from reaching the employees or their unions. Therefore, we refuse to believe that the circular dated 19. 12. 2000 could not be made effective because it was not published. We hasten to add that it was not because of the circular that the pension was to be calculated under Regulation 28 and not under Regulation 29. The Bank had, in fact, taken out such circular so that it could intimate the concerned persons that they were to get their pension under Regulation 28 and not under Regulation 29 and some amendments were to be made to Regulation 28. In our opinion, nothing turns on this circular except that the employees were so informed even before they retired and further it explained the purpose of incoming amendment and gave a clear notice thereof to the retiring employees. ( 14 ) THE real crux of the question is the entitlement of the Bank employees to get the pension under Regulation 29. That would have to be independently established by the interpretation of the Voluntary retirement Scheme and the clauses therein read with the clauses under Pension Regulations. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Judge was bound to give an opportunity to the Bank to place all these material so that the bank's case could be properly understood. Unfortunately, that was not done and therefore, the learned Judge proceeded to decide the case on a single issue as to whether by subsequent amendment, the employees could be "deprived" of their right to the benefits under regulation 29 (5 ). We would have ordinarily remanded the matter. However, the parties were unanimous in getting an authoritative pronouncement of this question from the Division Bench and, therefore, we are proceeding with the matter. ( 15 ) WE will have to, therfore, concentrate on the question as to whether the employees like the present respondents, who had joined the Voluntary Retirement Scheme were entitled as of right to get the benefit under Regulation 29 (5) and whether the subsequent amendment could have that effect. ( 15 ) WE will have to, therfore, concentrate on the question as to whether the employees like the present respondents, who had joined the Voluntary Retirement Scheme were entitled as of right to get the benefit under Regulation 29 (5) and whether the subsequent amendment could have that effect. ( 16 ) THE Voluntary Retirement Scheme and more particularly, paragraph 7 (ii) thereof clearly mentions that employee seeking voluntary retirement, in addlition to the ex-gratia amount mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Scheme, would get pension (including commuted value of pension) as per PNB (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 or bank's contribution towards PF as per existing rules. Therefore, there can be no question that such employees were entitled to the pension as per the PNB (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995. The right of pension is, therefore, such which could not have been denied to these employees and their pension was to be as per PNB (Employees) Pension regulations 1995. This would, therefore, require us to consider the pension Regulations. ( 17 ) THE first question is as to whether such employees which had formed a class by themselves were already covered under the Pension regulations. Chapter V of the Pension Regulations gives various classes of pension. They are - (1) Superannuation pension, (2) Pension on voluntary retirement, (3) Invalid pension, (4) Compassionate allowance, (5) premature retirement pension. (6) compulsory retirement pension and (7) Family pension. Regulations 28 and 29 are the most important regulations for the purpose of present controversy. On the day when the employees opted for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and further on the day. their offer was accepted, they could not be said to have superannuated on account of attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, Regulation 28 was not applicable to them at all. The case of the respondents herein is that they were covered under Regulation 29. However, Regulation 29 which we have quoted above, very clearly suggests that an employee on or after first day of november 1993 can voluntarily retire provided he has put in 20 years of qualifying service and has given a notice not less than three months to the appointing authority. Such notice was required to be accepted by the authority. There is. Such notice was required to be accepted by the authority. There is. of course, a further stipulation via sub regulation (3) that the appointing authority could consider the request of the employee wanting to retire under Regulation 29 to accept a notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months, if a request in that behalf is made giving the proper reasons. ( 18 ) SUCH is not the case with the present respondents. Admittedly no such notice has been given under Regulation 29 nor has such a notice been accepted. Sub-regulation (5) very specifically says that the qualifying service of the employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased for a period of not exceeding five years subject to the condition that the total qualifying service shall not exceed 33 years and secondly, it does not take it beyond the date of superannuation. It is this benefit of 5 years which is a bone of contention in this appeal. Now reading this provision, it is clear that the benefit of 5 years can be given only to the employee retiring under Regulation 29. It is obvious that it is not under Regulation 29 that the present respondents have retired. They have retired not in terms of the Pension regulations but under a specific Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the Bank for a very limited period. ( 19 ) ON this backdrop when we see the various clauses of the voluntary Retirement Scheme, it is obvious that it is an entirely independent scheme with a specific objective to adopt measures to have optimum human resources at various levels in keeping with the business strategies, skill profile to achieve balanced age and requirement of the Bank. It is applicable only to the persons who have completed 15 years of service or have attained 40 years of age. It also excludes six categories of employees including specialist officers, employees serving abroad, employees facing disciplinary proceedings, employees appointed on contract basis and highly skilled and qualified employees etc. Under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, these employees seeking voluntary retirement are entitled to the ex-gratia amount which is 60 days salary for each completed year of service or the salary for number of months of service left, whichever is less. Now this advantage is not available to the employees who voluntarily retired under Regulation 29. Under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, these employees seeking voluntary retirement are entitled to the ex-gratia amount which is 60 days salary for each completed year of service or the salary for number of months of service left, whichever is less. Now this advantage is not available to the employees who voluntarily retired under Regulation 29. Further an employee who had put in less than 20 years of service though could join the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 was barred from getting pension under Regulation 29. Under elause 10. 6 of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the competent authority has an absolute discretion either to accept or reject the request. This is again in contradiction with Regulation 29 where the silence on the part of the appointing authority results in retirement becoming effective on the date of the expiry of the notice. In short, it can be safely held that voluntarily retirement under Regulation 29 is separate and distinct from the voluntarily retirement under the voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 and, therefore, the employees governed under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme would form a separate and distinct class from the employees who voluntarily retired under Regulation 29. It. therefore, follows that there is no provision of pension in the Pension Scheme for such employees like the respondents herein, who have voluntarily retired under Voluntarily retirement Scheme 2000. They cannot be said to be entitled to invalid pension or compassionate allowance or premature retirement pension or compulsory retirement pension for the obvious reasons. Then it will have to be held that Chapter V. as it stood, was completely silent about the employees like the respondents. ( 20 ) IT must be clarified here that the entitlement to the pension essentially comes via clause 14 of the Pension Regulations which provides that an employee who has rendered a minimum 10 years of service on the date of his retirement, shall qualify for pension. The term "date of retirement" in this Regulation has been defined in clause 2 (k) to mean the last date of the month in which the employee attains the age of superannuation or the date on which he has retired from the Bank or the date on which the employee voluntarily retires or the date on which the officer is deemed to have retired. The term "retirement" is defined in clause 2 (y) to mean cessation from Bank's service (a) on attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service regulations or settlements, (b) on voluntary retirement in accordance with provisions contained in regulation 29 of the Regulations or, (c) on premature retirement by the Bank before attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlements. Regulation 3 comes under Chapter II which is titled as "application and eligibility". Regulation 3 speaks about the application. Sub-regulation (3)includes those who are in the service of the Bank before the notified date and continued in the service of the Bank and exercise an option in writing within 120 days from the notified date to become the member of the Fund and authorize the Bank to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank along with the interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Fund. Ordinarily the respondent employees would have been covered under clause 3 (3) and would have been entitled to the pension after putting in the qualifying service provided further that thereafter they had retired in the manner indicated in the Regulations. However, it must be seen that the Pension Regulations and more particularly, the classes of pension under Chapter V, as the regulations stood then, did not make any provision of pension for a separate and distinct class like the present respondents who had voluntarily retired under a scheme. Therefore, it is clear that there was mo provision for the pension for such a class though there was an entitlement of the pension independent of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 in favour of such class on account of their having more than 10 years of qualifying service and further, on account of promise paid to them under the voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000. more particularly, under clause 7 (ii ). Under such circumstances, because of their entitlement of the pension some provision had to be made therefor and as such, the amendment came to made providing a proviso by way of an explanatory remedial amendment. ( 21 ) IN that view, it was clear that they did not voluntarily retire as contemplated in Regulation 29 but in a distinct and separate manner under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000. ( 21 ) IN that view, it was clear that they did not voluntarily retire as contemplated in Regulation 29 but in a distinct and separate manner under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000. Now it is obvious that the advantage of addition of five years of service would be available only to the employee who retired under Regulation 29. The language is extremely clear. We have, therefore. no doubts that in order to gain the benefit of sub-regulation (5), the employee must voluntarily retire in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 29 and the present respondents had not voluntarily retired in terms of or in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 29. ( 22 ) THE other reason why the respondent employees would not be entitled to the benefit under Regulation 29 (5) is that they are governed by the amended provision of Regulation 28 wherein the proviso clearly provides that with effect from 1. 9. 2000 the pension shall also be granted to the employees who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, but after rendering the service for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any scheme framed for such by the Bank. In the writ petition, the validity of this amendment was never challenged. The proviso had become law the day it was published in the Official gazette, that is in somewhere in the month of April 2002. The proviso fully applies to the respondent employees. In the wake of this valid and un-assailed legislation, the respondents cannot insist on being governed by Regulation 29. It is clear when there is a direct provision covering the respondent employees, they cannot fall back upon any other provision. ( 23 ) TO get out of this situation, Shri Dutta argued that the Bank could not, by making a subsequent amendment, take away the accrued vested right of the respondent employees and, therefore, the amended proviso must be so interpreted as to exclude the present respondent employees. In short, the contention is that the amendment would operate prospectively from the date -when it came into existence and will not govern the present employees who had retired before the amendment came on the Statute book. The argument is clearly incorrect. In short, the contention is that the amendment would operate prospectively from the date -when it came into existence and will not govern the present employees who had retired before the amendment came on the Statute book. The argument is clearly incorrect. It is the basic principle of interpretation that where the language of the provision is crystal clear and where there is no ambiguity, the literal interpretation for the provision must be accepted. The language of this amendment is extremely clear and very positively suggests that it is a retrospective amendment. The very opening words of the proviso suggest that the proviso is to apply with effect from 1st september. 2000. Under the circumstances, the unnatural meaning cannot be given by holding that the persons like the respondent employees would stand excluded from the operation of the proviso. The division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has considered this amendment in a decision in A. P. O. T. No. 643 of 2004 (supra) vide judgment dated 13. 7. 2005 and had held the said proviso to be retrospective in nature. The Judgment is binding on us and we agree with the same. Once the proviso has been held to be operating with effect from 1st September 2000, which is a date mentioned in the said proviso, there could be no question of its not being applicable to the respondent employees. In the same Judgment, the Division Bench has further specifically held that such employees would not be entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29 (5) as they constitute a distinct and separate class by themselves and are required to be dealt with according to the spirit of Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000. In that view, we would follow the Judgment even in respect of the non-applicability of regulation 29 (5) to the present respondent employees. ( 24 ) SIMILAR is the view taken by the Bombay High Court in a judgment reported in 2006 [108] FLR 85 (supra) as also the Delhi High court in an unreported Judgment in W. P. (C) No. 426 of 2002 (supra ). We have been shown that Kerala High Court has taken a contrary view in all unreported Judgment in W. A. No, 1640 of 2002. We have been shown that Kerala High Court has taken a contrary view in all unreported Judgment in W. A. No, 1640 of 2002. However, the learned Judges of the Kerala High Court have proceeded under the presumption that the clause applicable for computation of pension of those who opted to join the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 was clause 29. There, we do not agree with the Kerala High Court. There is no scope to presume that Regulation 29 was the clause under which the pension could be fixed for such employees. This is apart from the fact that the learned Judges did not have the benefit of the proviso being on the Statute book. They were merely considering the earlier notification by which the Bank had declared its intention to calculate the pension only under Regulation 28 and not under Regulation 29. Such is not the case here. After that notification, there was a valid legislation brought on which has remained unassailed so far. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of the Kerala High Court. Similar is the case in respect of Madras High Court in K. Radhakrishnan v. Indian Bank, reported in 2004 (1) LLJ 1144, which is a single Judge judgment. We are not in a position to agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court. Very significantly, both Kerala High Court as well as Madras High Court Judgments were considered by the learned single Judge of Delhi High Court and the learned Judge has agreed with the Calcutta High Court Judgment referred to supra as also the Bombay High Court Judgment. We would, therefore, agree with the view expressed by the High Court of Delhi. ( 25 ) AGAIN, the learned counsel is not at all right in saying that the amendment has taken away the accrued vested right of the respondent employees. We have earlier shown that from the language of the voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 and more particularly, clause 7 (ii)what was promised to them was pension under the P. N. B. (Employees')Pension Regulations 1995. It was not specifically promised that they would be entitled to the pension only under Regulation 29. We have already shown that though Regulation 29 pertains to voluntary retirement, that is a distinct and separate concept from the voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000. Therefore. It was not specifically promised that they would be entitled to the pension only under Regulation 29. We have already shown that though Regulation 29 pertains to voluntary retirement, that is a distinct and separate concept from the voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000. Therefore. it is misnomer to presume that under the Voluntary Retirement scheme 2000. the respondent employees had earned any vested right. In our opinion, there was no vested right excepting to the extent shown by us above. ( 26 ) SHRI Dutta. in this behalf, relied on a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in (2001)3 Supreme Court Cases 110 (supra ). Observations in paragraph 13 were relied upon to suggest that vested rights could not be taken away by retrospective amendment of rules. We have already given a finding that there was no question of a vested right being accrued to the petitioner on the basis of the language of the Voluntary retirement Scheme 2000, and more particularly, clause 7 (ii ). Therefore, this ruling is of no help to the respondents. Even in the reported decision, the same view was taken by the Supreme Court that there was no vested right and, therefore, there was no question of finding fault with the amendment. We do not, therefore, find any reason to accept the argument by Shri Dutta that there was any ambiguity in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and it was ought to be interpreted to harmonize with the intention. In our opinion, there is no necessity of giving any harmonious interpretation as we do not find any conflict in the provisions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 and the concerned proviso. ( 27 ) SHRI Dutta also relied on a reported Judgment in (2003)11 supreme Court Cases 572 (supra ). This case was relied upon by Shri dutta for a broad principle that once an application under a Voluntary retirement. Scheme has been accepted, it was not open to any party to make a contrary claim to the terms accepted. In our opinion, the case is completely inapposite to the present controversy. This is not the case where anything contrary is being done by the Bank to the Voluntary retirement Scheme. Scheme has been accepted, it was not open to any party to make a contrary claim to the terms accepted. In our opinion, the case is completely inapposite to the present controversy. This is not the case where anything contrary is being done by the Bank to the Voluntary retirement Scheme. On the other hand, the Bank has proceeded to add a proviso to Regulation 28 to make the pension available to the employees which ordinarily was not available, there being no provision in the Pension Regulations for the respondent employees who had voluntarily retired under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. ( 28 ) LASTLY Shri Dutta argues that the respondent employees had moved to their disadvantage on the basis of the representations and. therefore, the Bank was estopped from changing its position to the prejudice of these employees. A ruling reported in AIR 1971 SC 1021 was relied upon for this purpose. We have already shown that there was no question of the respondents moving to their disadvantage. In fact, as has been found by the Bombay High Court in its Judgment, the respondents got substantial monetary benefits. Yet they were trying to equate themselves with the employees who voluntarily retired under regulation 29. who do not get any such monetary benefit. Under the circumstances, the respondent employees were praying for the equal treatment to the unequals. That is not possible. In our opinion, the ruling has no relevance. ( 29 ) IN short, the appeal is liable to be allowed and is allowed. The judgment under challenge is set aside and the writ petition is directed to be dismissed. No costs. ( 30 ) URGENT Xerox certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for. be given to the parties on usual undertakings. Later on: in this case by way of an interim order it was directed that the original petitioners would be paid the difference, and in case the appeal is allowed, the amount of difference would be returned back by the original writ petitioners to the Bank along with 7% interest. After the judgment was pronounced. Mr. Dutta seeks stay only on that part of the order. Considering overall circumstances we hereby grant two weeks time to return the said amount. Appeal allowed