ORDER The facts of the case are.- The petitioners were employed by the respondent-Bank. The Bank had introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in terms of a Circular dated 29-12-2000. It was open to all permanent employees of the Bank, except those defined as "ineligible". It was stipulated that employees ought to have completed 40 years of age as on 31-12-2000. The petitioners claimed to be eligible and submitted their applications seeking voluntary retirement. 2. In implementing the above Schemes, the Bank decided to specify a "cut-off age" of 55 years and rejected the applications of the petitioners, since according to the Bank, the petitioners were both born on 1-1-1946 and had not attained the age of 55 years as on 31-12-2000. The petitioners had continued to be in the service of the Bank. 3. By coincidence, an employee of the very respondent-Bank, within the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and whose application had been rejected on the very ground that he was born on 1-1-1946 and has hence not attained 55 years of age on 31-12-2000, had preferred a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which was allowed, holding that a person born on 1-1-1946 would complete 55 years of age on 31-12-2000. And, the bank was directed to reconsider the case of the said employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme. 4. The petitioners cited the above order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and requested the Bank to reconsider their application. The Bank, in turn, accepted their applications with effect from 30-9-2002. And directed recovery of salaries paid to the petitioners for having worked from 1-4-2001 to 30-9-2002. 5. It is on the limited ground that the Bank is not entitled to recover the salary for the above period that the petitioners are before this Court. 6. The Counsel for the petitioner, would argue that the Bank had, on an incorrect understanding of the law, rejected the applications of the petitioners seeking voluntary retirement. While accepting the correct legal position and permitting the petitioners to seek voluntary retirement pursuant to the petitioners referring the above judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High. Court, the action of the Bank in seeking to recover salary for the period/during which the petitioners have actually worked, is arbitrary and unreasonable. While accepting the correct legal position and permitting the petitioners to seek voluntary retirement pursuant to the petitioners referring the above judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High. Court, the action of the Bank in seeking to recover salary for the period/during which the petitioners have actually worked, is arbitrary and unreasonable. The Counsel would argue that notwithstanding the purported acceptance of the condition, imposed by the Bank, by the petitioners to the effect that they would agree to the recovery of the salary and allowances paid for the period from 1-4-2001 to 30-9-2002, the same is an unfair and unreasonable imposition that cannot be sustained in law. And would pray that the petition be allowed. 7. The Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following authorities.- Life Insurance Corporation of India v Consumer Education and Research Centre1. To support the contention that where the terms and conditions of a contract involving the Government and an individual are unreasonable, unfair and irrational the same would be open to judicial review. Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v Hari Om Sharma2. To support the contention that an unconscionable condition imposed by way of an undertaking from an employee by an instrumentality of State, would be illegal. 8. Per contra, the Counsel for the respondents, contends that the applications of the petitioners were rejected on the ground that they had not attained 55 years of age as on 31-3-2001- 6n the basis of arithmetic calculation. However, on the basis of the legal position as declared by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, an option was offered to the petitioners as stipulated in the letters at Annexures-E and F to the petition, the same having been unconditionally accepted by the petitioners, there is no scope for challenge in the present writ petition. The amounts paid as salary, allowances and other benefits, are agreed to be recovered from the ex gratia amount payable to the petitioners and hence, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents. The Counsel places reliance on an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 8474 of 2004, dated 1-12-2005, wherein it is held that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme being purely contractual; the parties are bound by the terms of contract. And would submit, that the petition be dismissed. 9. The Counsel places reliance on an unreported decision of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 8474 of 2004, dated 1-12-2005, wherein it is held that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme being purely contractual; the parties are bound by the terms of contract. And would submit, that the petition be dismissed. 9. On these rival contentions, admittedly, the respondent concedes the legal position that the age of a. person is to be computed as having been attained on the day preceding the anniversary of the birthday, and it was in recognition of this legal position that the case of the petitioners was considered with retrospective effect. The respondent-Bank having taken an incorrect view and having denied the request for voluntary retirement, but later having relented, was certainly acting unreasonably in imposing a condition by way of an undertaking to permit the Bank to recover salary and other allowances paid from the date on which the petitioners would be entitled for voluntary retirement on the basis of their original application. The salary and allowances are paid for work actually rendered and cannot be sought to be recovered on the basis of any undertaking extracted from the petitioners who were not in a position to negotiate. In the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court cited by the petitioners the petition deserves to be allowed. 10. The respondent has by way of additional statement of objections has sought to contend that even in respect of the petitioner before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in respect of whom the respondent had accepted the application under the Scheme of Voluntary Retirement Scheme - pursuant to the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court - the salary and allowances paid had been recovered. Therefore, the petition be dismissed. 11. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, the very Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court records that the decision is subject to other similarly placed employees not being conferred any benefit contrary to the undertaking. And that if any employee was in fact conferred such benefit, the petitioners before the Court were also held entitled to such benefit. This observation would have enabled the petitioners to claim the benefit of the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.Y. Subbaiah's case (W.P. No. 15865 of 2001 disposed of on 3-1-2002). And that if any employee was in fact conferred such benefit, the petitioners before the Court were also held entitled to such benefit. This observation would have enabled the petitioners to claim the benefit of the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.Y. Subbaiah's case (W.P. No. 15865 of 2001 disposed of on 3-1-2002). Hence, it is inexplicable that the respondent claims that such amounts paid to B.V. Subbaiah and others have been recovered. In the absence of any material documents in this regard, and the statement made being contrary to the very decision of the Bombay High Court, there is no merit in the contention. 12. The petition is allowed. Clause (d) of Annexure-E and Annexure-F, respectively, reading: "The salary and allowances including the Bank's contribution to the Provident Fund for the period 1-4-2001 to the actual date of relief will be recovered and adjusted against the ex gratia payable to you." are quashed. The respondent shall grant all consequential benefits, including refund of salary for the period from 1-4-2001 to 30-9-2002.