JUDGMENT By the Court.—This is an appeal from an order of an Hon’ble Single Judge dated 26.9.2006 whereby the refusal of the appellant- Bank to pay pension, as recorded in their letter dated 5.2.2002 has been quashed and the matter has been remitted to them, for considering the case of the entitlement of the writ petitioner to pension. 2. Since there is no cross appeal, we are not in a position to grant a more favourable order to the writ petitioner and on arguments we are in respectful agreement with the order passed by Hon’ble Ms. Bharti Sapru, J. on the said date. 3. However since the matter is not free from legal doubts and the Bank is to consider the matter, some of the arguments made by learned Counsel and some of the notings of the so called “bound and rebound of ideas between the Bench and the Bar” a phrase used by Hon’ble Lord Justice Megarry should be noted. 4. The writ petitioner retired on the 31st of March, 2001 pursuant to a Voluntary Retirement Scheme which was put afoot by the Bank on the 15th of January, 2001 and which remained operative for acceptance for just about a fortnight, until 31.1.2001 to be exact. 5. On the 10th of January, 2001, that is about a week or so before the opening of the scheme the Bank had issued two circulars, one of which permitted withdrawal of the application to retire voluntarily, provided such withdrawal was made by the 15th of February, 2001 and by the other of which, the Bank had issued certain clarifications in regard to the scheme. We are concerned only with this second clarificatory circular dated 10.1.2001 and we shall simply refer to it hereafter as the Bank’s circular. 6. The issue as to entitlement to pension arises in this way. When on the 18th of March, 2001 the Bank accepted the offer of the writ petitioner to retire voluntarily, he had about 9 months service still to go and was aged about 59 years 3 months. 7. On the 31st of March, 2001, when his and every body elses voluntary retirement scheme became effective, he had put in 19 years 9 months 18 days of pensionable service. 8. 7. On the 31st of March, 2001, when his and every body elses voluntary retirement scheme became effective, he had put in 19 years 9 months 18 days of pensionable service. 8. If, therefore, the writ petitioner had retired in the normal course after attaining the age of 60 years which is the normal age of retirement of Bank employees now, he would have put in a little more than 20 years pensionable service and would also have attained the age of 60 and there would be no problem about his being qualified for receiving pension. 9. However, on 31.3.2001, when he did in fact retire on the voluntary basis, he had about two and a half months still to go for completing 20 years of pensionable service. The issue, which the Bank has been asked to decide by the order of Hon’ble Ms. Sapru, J. is whether, on the basis of the scheme, the writ petitioner is entitled to pension nonetheless. 10. In Clause-5 of the scheme, the incentive for voluntary retirement is mentioned, it is an ex-gratia payment of 60 days salary for every year of completed service. Since the writ petitioner had completed about 20 years of service he would be entitled to 40 months salary as ex gratia. The calculation is rough and ready. 11. Pension on the other hand and pension is all that this litigation is about, is about half month’s salary per month. Thus by utilising the voluntary retirement scheme, although the writ petitioner gave up about 9 months of service still left, he gained the incentive of 40 months salary and on top of that, if he is so entitled, he will get his half month’s pay as pension from the time he retires and therefore certainly after he attains the age of 60, as would have been the normal and ordinary case if he had simply served out his whole term. Therefore, if he is entitled to pension he has made a good bargain and has made an appropriate use of the voluntary retirement scheme for his own benefit. Nobody can grudge him that. 12. Therefore, if he is entitled to pension he has made a good bargain and has made an appropriate use of the voluntary retirement scheme for his own benefit. Nobody can grudge him that. 12. If on the other hand he is not entitled to pension he has been very unwise since he has given up his half month’s pension for several years, and considering the life expectancy these days, it is not a good bargain to barter it away for 40 months salary i.e. 80 months’ pension in a lump sum in the beginning. 13. The relevant clause in the scheme is clause 6 which mentions the benefit under sub-clause (c) render the scheme states the benefit as follows : “Pension in terms of State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules on the relevant date (including commuted value of pension)." 14. The application of the voluntary retirement scheme meant that the Bank employee agreed with the Bank to be bound by the scheme and thus the above clause has become a binding contract between the writ petitioner and the Bank on 18.3.2001 when the competent authority accepted the offer of retirement made by the writ petitioner. 15. As such, one has to go to the Pension Fund Rules to see whether the writ petitioner is entitled to pension or not. 16. One doubt should be clarified once for all at this stage. Although we are in the writ Court the task is really one of interpreting is a contractual term between the two parties. An objection perhaps could have been taken that the whole thing should be fought out by way of a suit but that objection not being taken, not even before us (only we mention it ourselves) there is no question of treating the writ petitioner so unjustly as to drive him to a suit now. The Pension Fund Rules also had been amended, so to speak, in the nick of time. It was said that although the amendments were sufficiently formulated before the 31st of March, 2001 yet the trustees of the pension fund accepted the amended Rules only on the 30th of October, 2001. Fortunately for our purposes the clause which is relied upon by the writ petitioner is both there in the previous rules and in the present one. It was said that although the amendments were sufficiently formulated before the 31st of March, 2001 yet the trustees of the pension fund accepted the amended Rules only on the 30th of October, 2001. Fortunately for our purposes the clause which is relied upon by the writ petitioner is both there in the previous rules and in the present one. We set out Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules both in the unamended and in the amended form and it runs as follows : Rule Existing Rules No. Save as provided in Rule 25, no employees shall be eligible to become a member of the fund on or after 1.11.1993. (a) If he is a member of the Imperial Bank of India Employees’ Pension and Guarantee Fund or if he is engaged in any country outside India and appointed for service in such country. (b) If he is below 18 years of age; (c) If he is over 48 years of age: or (d) Whose service is specially declared by the Bank to be non-pensionable. A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the bank’s service— (a) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 1.11.1993, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years; (b) After having completed twenty years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise that he is incapacitated for further active service; (c) After having completed twenty years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at his request in writing; (d) After twenty five years pensionable service. service. Amended Rules Save as provided in Rule 25, no employee shall be eligible to become a member of the fund on or after 22.5.1998. service. Amended Rules Save as provided in Rule 25, no employee shall be eligible to become a member of the fund on or after 22.5.1998. (a) If he is a member of the Imperial Bank of India Employees’ Pension and Guarantee Fund or if he is engaged in any country outside India and appointed for service in such country: (b) If he is below 18 years of age; (c) If he is over 50 years of age; or (d) Whose service is specially declared by the Bank to be non-pensionable. A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the bank’s service— (a) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 1.11.1993, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.5.1998, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty years; (b) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise that he is incapacitated for further active service; (c) After having completed twenty years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at his request in writing. (d) After twenty five years’ pensionable service. 17. The writ petitioner’s case simply is that he comes under the second part of Rule 22 (i) (a). He says that he was in the service of the Bank on and after 1.11.1993, further that he has completed 10 years of pensionable service, and further that he has attained the age of 58 years before the date he retired. Therefore, according to him, on a plain reading of the Pension Rules, which are applicable, he is entitled to pension. 18. The Bank raises a point that in the Bank’s circular the Bank had clarified that for entitlement to pension under the voluntary retirement scheme, the employee would have to; repeat have to complete 20 years of pensionable service. Therefore, according to him, on a plain reading of the Pension Rules, which are applicable, he is entitled to pension. 18. The Bank raises a point that in the Bank’s circular the Bank had clarified that for entitlement to pension under the voluntary retirement scheme, the employee would have to; repeat have to complete 20 years of pensionable service. The relevant extract in this regard is as follows : “(3) Whether or not the employees, completing 15 years of pensionable service as on relevant date (date of retirement under SBIVRS), will be entitled for pension benefits? In this connection, we invite a reference to para 6(c) of the Scheme forwarded under the cover of Circular No. HRD/CDO/VRS/1 dated 29.12.2000. The payment of pension to the employee retiring under SBIVRS would be governed by State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules on the relevant date (including commuted value of pension). However, as per existing rules, employees who have not completed 20 years of pensionable service are not eligible for pension.” 19. We put it to the Bank whether the circular was also made a part of the written agreement and whether the employee was asked to apply for the voluntary retirement scheme stating that he was willing to be bound both by the scheme and by the circular. The categoric answer from the Bank was that the circular was not made binding in that manner. In other words the contract between the writ petitioner and the Bank contains as it-terms, the voluntary retirement scheme and the Pension Fund Rules, but not any of the clarifications given by the Bank in its circular. These clarifications therefore have no greater status in law than the reading by one party of the contract of what the terms of the contract mean according to that one party. 20. The pension Rules also apply to the writ petitioner not by any force of special statutory law but only by force of agreement and contract. These Rules were made by the Bank in exercise of powers conferred by Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act (Act 23 of 1955) and when an employee retires outside the contractual retirement scheme, the rules would apply as statutory rules or rules framed under the statute but in the case of the writ petitioner the rules apply merely as contract. 21. 21. The second important point raised by the Bank was that under Rule 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules, when an employee retires upon a request in writing being made by him, he has to complete 20 years of service. Thus, the voluntary retirement being a retirement pursuant to the employees’ request, it is this clause which will be applicable to him and it will not be proper to give him pension because he comes under another clause i.e. Clause (a), which was merely introduced to accommodate late entrants into service when the retirement age was raised to 58 on 1.11.1993 and then to 60 on 22.5.1998. Clause-(a) was inserted so as to give employees benefit of pension after 10 years of pensionable service even if they had joined late. According to the Bank the writ petitioner is seeking to take advantage of this clause although this clause was never intended to cover it. 22. It is also said that if in cases of retirement on request in writing clause (a) is made applicable then clause (c) will have no field of operation at all. Everybody will be entitled to pension after 10 years and therefore the 20 years requirement of Clause (c) will lose all mean. 23. Before giving our views on this point, we should set out Clause-15 of the Pension Fund Rules which permits retirement on request by the Bank employee provided a sanction is forthcoming from the competent authority. The said clause is as follows : “(15) The retirement of all officers of the Bank shall be subject to the sanction by the competent authority designated by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank from time to time, provided however that a decision to deny sanction under these rules to an officer shall need the previous approval of the Executive Committee of the Central Board. The retirement of all other employees of the bank shall be subject to the sanction of the competent authority designated by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank from time to time, provided however that a decision to deny sanction under these rules to an employee shall need the previous sanction of the Executive Committee of the Local Board concerned with his/her employment. Any officer or other employee who shall leave the service without sanction as required by this rule shall forfeit all claim upon the fund for pension.“ 24. In our opinion, the voluntary retirement under the scheme should not be equated to a retirement pursuant to clause 15 of the Pension Fund Rules. It might be that Clause 22(i)(c) was made to cover pension aspects for Clause 15 retirements and Clause 22 (i) (a) was made to cover normal superannuation retirements, but voluntary retirement was a special contract made available for a special purpose, and that too for a very small period of time which was practically one moment or just one short fleeting period during an employee’s service career. For this scheme and this contract the pension rules did not apply as rules. The rules apply as only a words in the contract. Therefore, if a contracting party is entitled to take benefit of a permissive clause, then that cannot be denied to him on the basis of a purposive construction of a statutory rule. This type of purposive construction is far less, if at all, applied to contracts. Contracts are, generally speaking, strictly interpreted on the basis of the language agreed upon by the parties. The Court does pot make out the parties contract, they make their own contract. 25. On this basis of strict/interpretation, the writ petitioner clearly comes, within Rule 22 (1) (a) although this is better put as Clause-22(i)(a) of the .Pension Fund Rules in reference to the contract. 26. Regarding the other aspect of clause 22 (i)(c) having no field of operation at all, one bare look will show that the said clause will operate in all cases where the retiring employee has not even attained the age of 58 years. If the pensionable period of 20 years has been completed before that, and the competent authority grants sanction to retire under Rule 15, then and in that event one would get pension although one would not under the second or third parts of clause 22 (i) (a). Thus each part of the contractual document is left with a meaning even if the interpretation in favour of the writ petitioner is wholly accepted. 27. Thus each part of the contractual document is left with a meaning even if the interpretation in favour of the writ petitioner is wholly accepted. 27. Perhaps we have not left the Bank with much of an alternative in giving their decision after this discussion but we felt called upon to discuss the matter once arguments have been advanced on behalf of both the parties. 28. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. ———