Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 243 (KER)

Chairman, Cochin Port Trust & Cochin Dock Labour Board v. K. V. A. Iyer

2010-03-18

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, P.N.RAVINDRAN, S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

body2010
Judgment :- Ravindran, J. The issue referred to us for decision is whether an employee of the erstwhile Cochin Dock Labour Board, who had opted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme for Employees of Cochin Dock Labour Board can claim the benefit of weightage under Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service as on the date of the intended retirement. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The first respondent in this appeal was an employee of the Cochin Dock Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for short), a statutory body established under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948. The Board merged with the Cochin Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust for short) in February 1998 in accordance with the provisions of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Inapplicability to Major Ports) Act, 1995. The Board had on 20-3-1992, prior to its merger with the Trust, resolved to adopt a scheme known as “Scheme of Voluntary Retirement for Employees of Cochin Dock Labour Board” (the Scheme for short), subject to the approval of the Central Government. It was also resolved that if a better scheme is introduced in the near future by the Government for Central Government employees, the same would be made applicable. Ext.P2 is a copy of the Scheme thus framed and adopted by the Board. The Central Government granted approval to the Scheme with modifications and communicated their decision to the Deputy Chairman of the Board by Ext.R2(b) letter dated 3-4-1992. 3. The first respondent, who was then working as Senior Labour Inspector in the Board, opted to retire under the Scheme with effect from 30-6-1992. He had by then completed nearly 28½ years of service. The first respondent’s application for voluntary retirement was accepted and he was given the benefits under Ext.P2 Scheme. He was however, aggrieved that he was not given five years’ weightage for pension under Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972 for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service. He had yet another grievance that two years after his retirement, the pension that he was drawing was curtailed by excluding the amount of fixed DA from his emoluments. He had yet another grievance that two years after his retirement, the pension that he was drawing was curtailed by excluding the amount of fixed DA from his emoluments. He thereupon moved the appellant seeking inclusion of fixed DA in the emoluments and claiming weightage under Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 for the purpose of computation of the length of service. That request was rejected by the appellant by Ext.P5 letter dated 9-7-1998. The first respondent thereupon filed O.P.No.14390 of 1998 in this Court. He contended that under Ext.P4 Pension Rules applicable to employees of the Board he was entitled to weightage under Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service on the date of retirement. He also contended that under the Ext.P4 Pension Rules, fixed DA forms part of the emoluments for the purpose of computation of pension. In the writ petition he challenged Ext.P4 and sought a declaration that he is entitled to revision of pension by allowing weightage of five years and inclusion of fixed DA in the emoluments for the purpose of computation of pension. 4. The appellant resisted the writ petition contending inter alia that Ext.P2 Scheme as approved by the Central Government does not contemplate award of weightage under Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and that the said claim is inadmissible. It was contended that the first respondent, who had chosen to voluntarily retire from service under Ext.P2 Scheme, cannot claim any benefit other than the benefits available thereunder. The appellant also justified the exclusion of fixed DA from the emoluments for the purpose of computation of pension. 5. While the writ petition was pending, the appellant conceded the claim of the first respondent for inclusion of fixed DA in the emoluments for the purpose of computation of pension. The said grievance was thereby redressed. The only question that remained for consideration was whether the first respondent was entitled to weightage under Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service as on the date of retirement. The said grievance was thereby redressed. The only question that remained for consideration was whether the first respondent was entitled to weightage under Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service as on the date of retirement. The learned single Judge, after considering the rival contentions, held that by virtue of rule 27 of Ext.P4 rules, Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is made applicable and therefore, the first respondent is entitled to weightage of five years service for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service. The learned single Judge accordingly directed the appellant to revise the pensionary benefits in accordance with the findings in the judgment and to disburse the arrears thereof to the first respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Aggrieved thereby the appellant has preferred this writ appeal. 6. When the writ appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to the notice of the Division Bench the unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2520 of 1999 wherein it was held that an employee, who had opted for voluntary retirement under a scheme for voluntary retirement introduced by the Cochin Port Trust, cannot claim weightage of five years in terms of Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned counsel for the first respondent relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mohandas K. v. Bank of India, I.L.R. 2005 (3) Kerala 476 wherein, interpreting the provisions of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by the Bank of India, it was held that an employee who opts for voluntary retirement under the said scheme is entitled to weightage of five years service for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service. In view of the conflict of opinion, the Division Bench passed an order of reference on 8-2-2010 referring the writ appeal to a Full Bench of this Court. This writ appeal has thus come up before us, for hearing. 7. We heard Sri. P. Gopinath Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. Koshy George, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri. This writ appeal has thus come up before us, for hearing. 7. We heard Sri. P. Gopinath Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. Koshy George, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri. Ajith Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Ext.P2 Scheme was adopted by the Board on 20-3-1992 subject to approval of the Central Government and subject to the condition that if a better scheme is introduced in the near future by the Government for Central Government employees, the same would be made applicable. Resolution No.16 dated 20-3-1992 by which the Board adopted Ext.P2 Scheme reads as follows:- RESOLUTION NO.16. RESOLVED to adopt the Scheme, viz. “scheme of Voluntary Retirement for the employees of Cochin Dock Labour Board”, prepared on the guidelines suggested by the Govt. in their letter No.LB-16016/7/88-L II dt. 29th August 1991, appended as Annexure I forming part of this minutes, subject to the Govt. approval; and with the proviso that if a better scheme was introduced in the near future by the Government for Central Government Employees, the same would be made applicable.” 8. Paragraph 5 of Ext.P2 Scheme, which sets out the benefits payable to an employee who opts for voluntary retirement thereunder, reads as follows:- “5. Benefits under the Scheme. An employee whose voluntary retirement is accepted will be eligible to the following payments:- a) Balance in the P.F. account as per rules of P.F. applicable to the employee. b) Encashment of accumulated Earned Leave as per rules applicable to the employees, as if he/she retires under the normal rules of retirement. c) Gratuity under the rules/scheme of the Board applicable to the employees for the qualifying period of service. d) Lumpsum ex-gratia payment equivalent to 1½ months emoluments of pay + DA for each completed year of service or the discounted value of the emoluments (at 12% rate of discounts) that would have become payable for the balance months of service left, whichever is less. e) Pension as per rules of the Board for those who have opted for pension. (emphasis supplied) f) Travel by the entitled class for the employees and his/her family to the native place or to the place where he/she intends to settle down. e) Pension as per rules of the Board for those who have opted for pension. (emphasis supplied) f) Travel by the entitled class for the employees and his/her family to the native place or to the place where he/she intends to settle down. g) 5 years weightage for pension to the limit of 33 years under Rule 48(I)(a) and 48-A of Central Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.” (emphasis supplied) 9. From paragraph 5(e) extracted above it is clear that an employee who opts for voluntary retirement from service under Ext.P2 Scheme and has opted for pension is entitled to pension as per the rules of the Board. Paragraph 5(g) of Ext.P2 Scheme also provided for five years’ weightage for pension to the limit of 33 years under Rule 48(I)(a) and 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. When Ext.P2 Scheme was forwarded to the Central Government for approval, the Central Government did not approve paragraph 5(g) of Ext.P2 Scheme. This fact is not in dispute and Ext.R2(b) letter clarifies the said position. However, paragraph 5(e) of Ext.P2 Scheme was approved by the Central Government. The short question that arises for consideration is whether as per the rules of the Board, the first respondent is entitled to five years’ weightage under Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 for computing the length of qualifying service. 10. Ext.P4 is a copy of the Pension Rules of the Board. It came into force with effect from 1-3-1980. Rule 13 of Ext.P4 defines the term ‘qualifying service’. Rule 13 of Ext.P4 reads as follows:- “13. Qualifying service: (i) Uninterrupted service including service which is interrupted by sickness, accident, leave, lay-off, strike or a lock out, temporary assignment on temporary duty or cessation of work not due to any fault of the employee concerned, whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was rendered before and after the commencement of these rules. (ii) Any period of foreign service, provided a contribution towards pension is recovered from the foreign employer. (ii) Any period of foreign service, provided a contribution towards pension is recovered from the foreign employer. (iii) An employee appointed to a post shall be eligible to add to his service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding one fourth of the length of service or the actual period by which his/her age at the time of recruitment exceeds 25 years or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the post to which he/she is appointed is one (i) to which candidate of more than 25 years of age are normally recruited Or (ii) for which post graduates, research or specialist qualification or experience or Scientific Technological or Professional nature is essential, provided that this concession shall not be admissible to an employee unless his/her actual qualifying service at the time he/she quits service is not less than 10 years. (b) Qualifying service does not include – (i) Service as an apprentice. (ii) The period of break in service between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement unless regularized as duty leave by a specific order of the Deputy Chairman. Note:1. The period of qualifying service shall be rounded to the nearest completed six monthly periods. Example: 1. Qualifying service of 30 years, 5 months and 12 days should be rounded to 60 six monthly periods. 2. 20 years, 8 months and 13 days should be rounded to 53 six monthly periods and so on. 2. ‘Qualifying service’ shall mean minimum of 10 years service.” It is not in dispute that applying Rule 13 of Ext.P4 rules the first respondent was granted pension reckoning the length of qualifying service as 28½ years. 11. Rule 27 of Ext.P4 reads as follows:- “27. Procedures to be adopted when changes arise in C.S. Pension Rules, 1972 of the Government. In respect of computation of pension, length of service, scale of pension and other conditions for payment of pension for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in these Rules, the Rules applicable from time to time to the corresponding category of Central Government Servants shall apply, subject to such modifications and variations or exceptions, if any, as the Board may, with the approval of the Central Government, by order from time to time, specify.” 12. Rule 27 states that if in respect of computation of pension, length of service, scale of pension and other conditions for payment of pension, no provision has been made in the rules or the provision therein is insufficient, the rules applicable from time to time to the corresponding category of Central Government employees shall apply, subject to such modifications and variations or exceptions, if any, as the Board may, with the approval of the central Government, by order from time to time, specify. On a plain reading of Rule 27 it is clear that if for computing the length of qualifying service there is no provision in the rules or the provision in the rules is insufficient, the rules applicable from time to time to the corresponding category of Central Government employees shall apply. The relevant rules applicable to Central Government employees are the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Under Rule 27 of Ext.P4, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 will govern matters in respect of which there is no provision in Ext.P4 Rules or the provision therein is insufficient. It is only in cases where the Board chooses to apply the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 with modifications, variations or exceptions that prior approval of the Central Government is required. The heading of Rule 27 of Ext.P4 makes it clear that rule 27 will operate when changes arise in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 13. Ext.P4 rules came into force on 1.3.1980. At that point of time, Rule 48-B, the benefit of which is claimed by the first respondent, was not in force. Rule 48-B, providing for addition to qualifying service on voluntary retirement, was introduced in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 only with effect from 10.9.1983. 13. Ext.P4 rules came into force on 1.3.1980. At that point of time, Rule 48-B, the benefit of which is claimed by the first respondent, was not in force. Rule 48-B, providing for addition to qualifying service on voluntary retirement, was introduced in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 only with effect from 10.9.1983. Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 reads as follows:- “48-B. Addition to qualifying service on voluntary retirement (1) The qualifying service as on the date of intended retirement of the Government servant retiring under Rule 48(1)(a) or Rule 48-A or Clause (K) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules or clause (i) of Article 459 of the Civil Service Regulations, with or without permission shall be increased by the period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by the Government servant does not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. (2) The weightage of five years under sub-rule (1) shall not be admissible in cases of those Government servants who are prematurely retired by the Government in the public interest under Rule 48(1)(b) or FR 56(j).” 14. Rule 48-B provides for addition to qualifying service on voluntary retirement by a period not exceeding five years subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by the Government servant does not, in any case, exceed 33 years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 48-B however stipulates that weightage under sub-rule (1) shall not be admissible in the case of Government servants who are prematurely retired by the Government in public interest under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or Fundamental Rule 56(j). Sub-rule (2) of Rule 48-B however stipulates that weightage under sub-rule (1) shall not be admissible in the case of Government servants who are prematurely retired by the Government in public interest under Rule 48(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or Fundamental Rule 56(j). Rule 48-B also states that the benefit of addition to qualifying service on voluntary retirement applies only to Government servants retiring under Rule 48(1)(a) meaning thereby those who retire on completion of 30 years of qualifying service and/or Rule 48-A meaning thereby those Government servants who retire on completion of 20 years of qualifying service and/or clause (k) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules meaning thereby those who retire from service after attaining the age of fifty years, if he is in Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ service or post and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty-five years and in all other cases after he has attained the age of fifty-five years. It also applies to Government servants governed by Clause (i) of Article 459 of the Civil Service Regulations. 15. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not govern the case on hand, we are in agreement with the learned single Judge that by virtue of rule 27 Ext.P4 rules, Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is made applicable. Rule 27 of Ext.P4 rules itself contemplates a contingency where changes arise in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Ext.P4 rules came into force on 1.3.1980. It was thereafter that Rule 48-B was incorporated in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. Ext.P4 rules do not contain a similar provision. At the point of time when Ext.P4 rules were framed and brought into force, the benefit of addition to qualifying service on voluntary retirement was not available to Government servants governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and such a benefit was conferred on Government employees only with effect from 10-9-1983. The intention behind the incorporation of Rule 27 of Ext.P4 rules was to confer additional benefits on employees of the Board governed by Ext.P4 rules when changes arise in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and in Ext.P4 rules there is no provision or the provision therein is insufficient. The intention behind the incorporation of Rule 27 of Ext.P4 rules was to confer additional benefits on employees of the Board governed by Ext.P4 rules when changes arise in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and in Ext.P4 rules there is no provision or the provision therein is insufficient. Such a change occurred with effect from 10.9.1983 when Rule 48-B was incorporated in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. By virtue of Rule 27 of Ext.P4 rules, Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was incorporated in Ext.P4 rules. As held by us earlier, it is only if the Board has chosen to modify or vary Rule 48-B or bring in exceptions to the applicability of that rule that the approval of the Central Government is contemplated. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was right in holding that by virtue of Rule 27 of Ext.P4 rules, Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 applies to employees of the Board. We are also not in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that as the Central Government have not approved paragraph 5(g) of Ext.P2 Scheme, Rule 48B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 cannot be extended to confer additional benefits on those who retire under Ext.P2 Scheme. 16. Paragraph 5(g) of Ext.P2 Scheme refers to five years weightage for pension subject to the limit of 33 years under Rule 48(1)(a) and 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. As noticed earlier, Rule 48(1)(a) permits a Government servant, who has completed 30 years of qualifying service to retire from service and Rule 48-A permits such retirement after completing 20 years of qualifying service by giving not less than three months’ notice in writing to the appointing authority. Paragraph 3(a) of Ext.P2 scheme stipulates that the employee should have completed 10 years of service in the Board or completed 40 years of age to be eligible for voluntary retirement. Paragraph 5 (e) of Ext.P2 Scheme contemplates grant of pension as per rules of the Board for those employees, who opt for voluntary retirement on payment of pension. Paragraph 3(a) of Ext.P2 scheme stipulates that the employee should have completed 10 years of service in the Board or completed 40 years of age to be eligible for voluntary retirement. Paragraph 5 (e) of Ext.P2 Scheme contemplates grant of pension as per rules of the Board for those employees, who opt for voluntary retirement on payment of pension. Rule 27 of Ext.P4 rules, which are the rules of the Board governing grant of pension expressly makes the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 applicable, when changes arise in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for the purpose of computing the length of service or computation of pension, scale of pension and other conditions for payment of pension, there is no provision in Ext.P4 rules or the provision therein is insufficient. Therefore, it was unnecessary to separately stipulate in Ext.P2 Scheme that five years weightage for pension subject to a limit of 33 years under Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 will be given to those employees who opt to retire under Ext.P2 Scheme. That must evidently be the reason why the Central Government declined to approve paragraph 5(g) of Ext.P2 scheme. Even without paragraph 5(g), by virtue of Rule 27 of Ext.P4 Rule, Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was made applicable. Further, under Rule 48(1)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 only Government servants who have completed 30 years’ qualifying service can retire from service voluntarily and under Rule 48-A only those who have completed 20 years of qualifying service can retire voluntarily by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority. Under Ext.P2 Scheme, employees who have completed ten years of service in the Board or have completed 40 years of age are eligible to opt for voluntary retirement under that Scheme. Therefore, if Rule 48(1)(a) and/or Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 are made applicable, it will have the effect of denying the benefit of Ext.P2 Scheme to those employees who have less than 20 years of qualifying service. Therefore, if Rule 48(1)(a) and/or Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 are made applicable, it will have the effect of denying the benefit of Ext.P2 Scheme to those employees who have less than 20 years of qualifying service. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention raised by the appellant that as the Central Government have not approved paragraph 5(g) of Ext.P2 Scheme, the first respondent cannot claim addition to qualifying service under Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 17. We shall now refer to the decision of the Division bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.2520 of 1999 referred to and relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. The scheme involved in that case was a Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced by the Trust for those who have completed ten years of service or completed 40 years of age. The scheme was framed in the year 1992. Clause 4(e) of that scheme provided that an employee who retires voluntarily will be eligible, inter alia, for: “Pension as per the CCS (Pension) Rules for those who have opted for pension and for those who have opted for C.P.F., the benefits as applicable to them.” The appellant in W.A.No.2520 of 1999 claimed that he is entitled to five years weightage under Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 upon voluntary retirement. The Trust resisted the said claim contending that Rule 48-B applies only to those who retire under Rule 48(1)(a) and Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The learned single Judge who dismissed O.P.No.3193 of 1996, from which W.A.No.2520 of 1999 arose, upheld the said objection. It was held that the petitioner therein who opted to retire under the scheme cannot get the weightage of five years contemplated in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as the scheme does not envisage any such weightage. On appeal, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2520 of 1999 held, interpreting clause 4(e) of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which we have extracted above, as follows:- “It is thus contended that when pension as per Pension Rules is made applicable even in the case of retirement under Ext.P3, there is no reason to avoid the application of Rule 48-B as mentioned above. We are afraid that we cannot accept this contention, because what is made applicable as per para 4(e) of Ext.P3 is “pension as per CCS (Pension) Rules” and not the qualifying service or additional weightage of the qualifying service as provided for in Rule 48-B of the Pension Rules. In other words, the computation of the cash flow on the count of pension alone is made applicable and not the qualifying service, obviously because even those who are not entitled for pension in terms of the Pension Rules are made eligible for pension under Ext.P3. That is why we could not accept the contention with reference to Rule 48-B vis-à-vis Ext.P3.” (emphasis supplied) It was held that clause 4(e) of the scheme involved in that case did not make rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 applicable and that computation of the cash flow on account of pension alone was made applicable. The Division Bench held that as the Voluntary Retirement Scheme entitles even those who are not eligible for pension in terms of the Pension Rules to receive pension, Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 cannot be made applicable. The Division Bench further held that the appellant in the writ appeal could have voluntarily retired under Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules on completion of 20 years of service and in that event he would have been entitled to the benefit of Rule 48-B for computing the length of qualifying service. On going through the pleadings and the materials in W.A.No.2520 of 1999 we are of the view that on the terms of the stipulations in the scheme, which arose for consideration in that case, the view taken by the Division Bench appears to be correct. The case on hand is however different. In our opinion, Rule 27 of Ext.P4 rules and the context and setting in which it is placed, distinguishes the instant case from W.A.No.2520 of 1999. We accordingly hold that the principles laid down in the said decision have no application to the case on hand. 18. We shall now refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohandas K. and others v. Bank of India and another, I.L.R. 2005 (3 Kerala 476. The scheme involved in that case was the Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme. 18. We shall now refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Mohandas K. and others v. Bank of India and another, I.L.R. 2005 (3 Kerala 476. The scheme involved in that case was the Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Clause 5(3) (ii) of the said scheme provided that an employee whose application for voluntary retirement is accepted and relieved from the Bank shall be eligible for “own contribution of provident fund and pension in terms of Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1955” in the case of those “who have opted for pension and have put in 20 completed years of service in the Bank.” The scheme thus provided for payment of pension in terms of the Pension Regulations of the Bank. Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations of the Bank, which relates to payment of pension on voluntary retirement, provided in sub-clause (5) thereof 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 employees shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation”. The Bank of India denied the benefit of that provision, which is pari materia with Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 to some of its employees who have opted for voluntary retirement under the Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that clause 29(b) of the Pension Regulations of the Bank of India applies only to those who retire voluntarily under the Pension Regulations and not under the Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. On appeal, the Division Bench of this Court in Mohandas K. & Others (supra) held that as the Voluntary Retirement Scheme refers to the Pension Regulations for the purpose of computation of pension without any restriction as to its applicability, the benefits available under the Pension Regulations have to be made applicable to those who retire in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme also. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Mohandas K. & others (supra). We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Mohandas K. & others (supra). It is brought to our notice that the Apex Court has upheld the decision of the Division Bench in Mohandas K. & others (supra) in Bank of India and another v. K. Mohandas and others (2009) 5 SCC 313 wherein the Apex Court held as follows:- “64. On behalf of banks it was submitted that the employees, having taken benefits under the Scheme (VRS 2000), are estopped from raising any issue that their entitlement to pension would not be covered by amended Regulation 28. It was suggested that the employees having taken benefit of the Scheme cannot insist for pension under Regulation 29(5). O.P. Swamakar was relied upon in this regard wherein it has been held that an employee, having taken the ex gratia payment, or any other benefit under the Scheme cannot be allowed to resile from the Scheme. 65. Insofar as the present group of appeals is concerned, the employees are not seeking to resile from the Scheme. They are actually seeking enforcement of the clause in the Scheme that provides that the optees will be eligible for pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995. According to them, they are entitled to the benefits of Regulation 29(5). In our considered view, plea of estoppel is devoid of any substance; as a matter of fact it does not arise at all in the facts and circumstances of the case. 66. We hold, as it must be, that the employees who had completed 20 years of service and were pension optees and offered voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 and whose offers were accepted by the banks are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purposes of that Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The contrary views expressed by some of the High Courts do not lay down the correct legal position.” 19. The contrary views expressed by some of the High Courts do not lay down the correct legal position.” 19. In our opinion, the principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Mohandas K. and others v. Bank of India, (supra) as upheld by the Apex Court in Bank of India and another v. K. Mohandas and others (2009) 5 SCC 313 fortifies our conclusion that in view of Rule 27 of Ext.P4 rules which are made applicable to Ext.P2 Scheme, the first respondent who retired under Ext.P2 Scheme is entitled to weightage of five years service for the purpose of computing the length of qualifying service applying Rule 48-B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by him does not exceed thirty-three years and does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. We accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out warranting interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge. The writ appeals fails and is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.