Judgment 1. All these petitioners being denied of pensionary benefits under the joint note dated 27.4.2010, are before this Court. 2. The brief background of these cases is that: 3. There was a persistent demand for pension as a third terminal benefit. In the banking industry, except the payment of provident fund and the gratuity, there was no provision for pensionary benefit. The service conditions of the employees was based on the terms of settlement between the employees' Union and the Management, based on such settlement, the Bank was framing the regulation with the approval of the Central Government. However, the Banking Industry noticing the persistent demand, constituted a non-statutory body called "The Indian Banks Association" (in short referred as ‘I.B.A.’) to negotiate with the employees' association and various Trade Unions of the Banks. 4. The IV Pay Commission submitted its report on 1.1.1986, recommending the liberalised pension scheme for the Central Government employees. The Bank Employees' Association and the Trade Unions of the Banks found that, the liberalised pension scheme also be introduced in the Banking industry, as the liberalised pension scheme is recommended by the IV Pay Commission for Central Government employees. Added to this, the Reserve Bank of India introduced pension scheme for its employees on 1.11.1990, with effect from 1.1.1986. Boosted by the Reserve Bank of India's decision to provide pensionary benefit to its employees, the banking employees intensified their demonstration. When, despite their repeated demands, and agitation, both the Central Government as well as the I.B.A. did not heed to their request, the Trade Unions of the Banks decided 2.11.1993. In the meanwhile, the I.B.A. having noticed the seriousness of the situation, for the first time, the I.B.A. and the Trade Union agreed to meet on the issue of providing pension to the Bank employees, accordingly, on 21.10.1993, they agreed to formulate the pensionary scheme on par with R.B.I. In pursuance of negotiations on 25.10.93 a recommendation was sent to the Government of India for adopting pensionary benefit to the employees of the commercial banks. In furtherance of recommendation, both agreed to fix a date for signing the agreement. As many as 59 banks represented through I.B.A. signed the memorandum of agreement on 29.10.1993, fixing the effective date from 1.11.1993. It was agreed to introduce the pensionary benefit as a second retirement benefit, as against the contributory provident fund. 5. In furtherance of recommendation, both agreed to fix a date for signing the agreement. As many as 59 banks represented through I.B.A. signed the memorandum of agreement on 29.10.1993, fixing the effective date from 1.11.1993. It was agreed to introduce the pensionary benefit as a second retirement benefit, as against the contributory provident fund. 5. The said scheme was made applicable to those employees, who were in service as on 1.1.1986 and retired thereafter including existing employees. A draft circulars were prepared by various banks accordingly for the benefit of Bank employees, an information was issued to enable the intending employees for exercising their option for opting the pensionary benefit, however, the circular/regulations contained a clause for forfeiture of pension in case the employee is found to be involved in a strike against the Bank. However, in bipartite agreement, it was not agreed. This clause was contrary to the terms of the settlement agreed to between the Trade Union and the I.B.A. Apprehending the forfeiture, only 48% of the employees opted for pensionary benefit, 52%, they did not exercise their option and sought for different mode of terminal benefits like V.R.S., resignation or under other schemes. 6. In the meanwhile, some of the employees, who could not exercise option in time, sought for extension of time, and on refusal of the same, approached this Court. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed, against which, writ appeals were filed and writ appeals also came to be dismissed, as against which, S.L.P.No.3634/2006 and other connected petitions were filed before the Apex Court, the Apex Court by order dated 22.2.2008 granted leave. 7. After the grant of leave and while the civil appeals were pending, second round of negotiation started between the I.B.A. and the Employees' Trade Unions of the Banks for granting second option, accordingly, on 25/26.2.2008, a meeting was held, in the said meeting, it was agreed to grant second option to the employees, who could not exercise their option earlier. On 27.10.2007, a memorandum was also entered into and finally, a joint note came to be signed on 27.4.2010 by the Indian Bank Association and the Trade Union of the employees of the Banks and other parties. The joint note provided for second option to those, who had not exercised their option at the first instance, were provided to exercise second option. The joint note provided for second option to those, who had not exercised their option at the first instance, were provided to exercise second option. The said benefit was made applicable to such of employees, who were in service prior to 29.9.1995 in respect of nationalized bank and 26.3.1996 in respect of other banks, and who continued in service till 27.4.2010 or had retired, they could exercise their option within 60 days from the date of joint note. 8. Petitioners herein, who could not exercise the option at first instance, exercised their option within the stipulated time, as per the joint note. However, their request for grant of pension was rejected by the respondent -Banks by issuing endorsements/communications mainly on the grounds that: 1) as they have resigned; or 2) voluntary retirement opted by them does not come within the purview of pension regulation; or 3) the scheme under which they have retired, does not provide for pension, as their retirement is not on attaining the age of superannuation or is under voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations of 1995. 9. As against such rejections, petitioners are before this Court. 10. Sri. P. S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the writ petitioners submitted that, the joint note dated 27.4.2010, permits all such employees of the Banks, who were in service prior to 29.9.1995 and continued in service till the date of joint note or retired before the date of joint note to opt for pension, and the petitioners come within the requirement. He relied on the terms and conditions of the joint note and referred to the same. The relevant terms of joint note reads as under: "Another option for joining the existing Pension Scheme shall be extended to those Officers…" (2) (a) who were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks/26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and continue in the service of the bank on the date of this Joint Note; (b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer, to become a member of the Pension Fund and (c) authorise the Trust of the Provident Fund of the bank to transfer the entire contribution of the bank along with interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Pension Fund. (3) (a) were in service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks/26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and retired after that date and prior tot he date of this Joint Note; (b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer to become a member of the Pension Fund and (c) refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of the banks contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued there received by the officer on retirement together with his share in contribution towards meeting 30% of Rs.3115 crores which is estimated and reckoned as the funding gap for those eligible under Clause (3), (4) and (5) of the Joint Note. On an individual basis, the payment over and above the bank's contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon has been worked out at 56% of the said amount of bank's contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon received by the officer on retirement." He further submitted that, the joint note came to be signed after prolonged discussion and deliberation between the Indian Banks Association and Trade Unions of the employees of the Banks. The main deliberation was as to provide second option, and to remove the forfeiture clause. The second option was agreed to enable such employee, who under the fear of forfeiture, could not exercise their option and opted for some other mode of retirement. The second option under joint note does not exclude the Bank employee, who had retired or resigned, if such employee has rendered qualifying service and comes within the terms of the joint note, then is entitled for second option. 11. The main terms of the joint note is that, the employees, who (1) were in service of the Bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of nationalized banks/26.3.1996 in case of associate banks of State Bank of India and continued to be in service of the Bank as on the date of joint note. (2) were in service of the Bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of nationalized bank/26.3.1996 in case of associate banks of State Bank of India retired after the said date and prior to the joint note. 12. All such employees are covered under the joint note. (2) were in service of the Bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of nationalized bank/26.3.1996 in case of associate banks of State Bank of India retired after the said date and prior to the joint note. 12. All such employees are covered under the joint note. He submitted that, the petitioners herein are not questioning the terms of the joint note, but are claiming relief under the joint note. The joint note stipulates only two conditions, one that the officer must be in service prior to 29.9.1995 either he should have continued in service as on the date of joint note or he had retired before the joint note. The word "retired" contemplates all kinds of retirements from the service. The word "retired" is not qualified, to mean only on superannuation, to exclude other modes of retirement. To support his arguments, he also relied on clause (7) of the joint note and submitted that, even in case of retirement under Special Voluntary Scheme, such officers are also covered. This clause includes, even special class of retirement. All that is necessary is that, the Bank officer/employee must be in service prior to 29.9.1995 in case of Nationalized bank and 26th March 1996 in case of other Banks and continued in service till the date of joint note or retired before the date of joint note, and he must have rendered qualifying service. In case of voluntary retirement, the required qualifying service is 20 years. These petitioners have fulfilled all conditions. 13. He contended that, in case of special voluntary retirement scheme, the qualifying service is reduced to 15 years, still they are eligible under Clause 7 of the joint note. Hence, submitted that, there is no reason to exclude the petitioners from the pension scheme. 14. He further submitted that, the pension scheme is applicable to the Bank employees, who are covered under the different clauses of joint note, who fulfill the condition that they were in service prior to 29.9.1995 either continued as on the date of joint note or retired before same, but had put in qualifying service, in case of voluntary retirement, 20 years, in case of special retirement under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 15 years, and others who retired on attaining the age of superannuation, such of the employees were eligible to opt for pension under the Regulations. 15. 15. He further submitted that, those who could not opt for pension at the first option, and retired either by voluntary retirement or resignation or retired under different scheme, but were covered under terms of joint note were eligible to exercise the second option. Some of the officials out of fear, they could not exercise their first option, and took retirement on voluntary scheme or resigned. 16. As regard to the resignation, he relied on the judgment of this Court as well as the Apex Court, and submitted that, even if the employee has resigned, what is important is not how his services come to an end, whether he was qualified to acquire voluntary retirement in terms of clause (29) of the Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations 1995, resignation does not disentitle the employee, if he is otherwise qualified under the pension scheme. To support his arguments, he relied on the following judgments: 1. AIR 2011 SC 2990 in the matter of Sheelkumar Jain versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Others; 2. Order passed in W.P.No.24158-24160/2011 dated 18.4.2012; Writ Appeal Nos.2956-2977/2012 dated 30th July 2012; 3. AIR 1997 SC 565 in the matter of Union of India and others versus Lt. Col. P.S. Bhargava; 4. 2009 (16) SCC-422 in the matter of Syndicate Bank Versus Smt. Satya Srinath. and submitted that, the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.24158-24160/2011 dated 18.4.2012 wherein Clause-7 of the Circular dated 7.9.2010 issued by the Vjaya Bank was called in question. The learned Single Judge held that, the Clause7 of the Circular is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India interalia observing that: "In deciding the entitlement of an employee for pension and other pensionary benefits, the Court should necessarily bear in mind the well settled position in law that where an employee put in more than minimum qualifying service for pension under the relevant Regulations or the Rules, even in case of resignation after putting in the qualifying service, the employee would be entitled to pension and otherwise the rule denying the pension merely on the ground that the employee has resigned even though the employee has put in required service prescribed under the relevant Regulations or the Rules, will be violative of Article 14 postulates and the provision of Article 16 of the Constitution." 17. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.2956-2977/2012 by relying on the Sheelkumar Jain's case (supra) and distinguishing the case in UCO Bank versus Sanwar Mal reported in AIR 2004 SC 2135 has observed that: "an Officer has to his credit the minimum period of qualifying service, he earns a right to get pension and as the Regulations stand that right to get pension can be taken away only if an order is passed under Regulations 3 or 16." Further submitted that, the Courts will have to keep in mind the purposes of the statutory provisions to grant pensionary benefits to employees, who have rendered minimum qualifying service. Merely because he has tendered resignation, it cannot be construed as to deprive of an employee of the benefit of the pension under the Scheme. This Court has upheld that even in case of resignation, an employee, if he is otherwise qualified and has to his credit the minimum period of qualifying service, he would become entitled for exercising his option for pensionary benefit under the Scheme. 18. Further, in the matter of Satya Srinath's case (supra), the Apex Court considering the retirement and the resignation has observed that, the officer, if he had a minimum qualifying service, he is entitled for pension. He further submitted that, as far as resignation is concerned, the matter has been concluded by the decision of the Division Bench and also by the decision of the Apex Court, as such, even if the person has resigned, resignation by itself does not disentitle such officer. 19. He also submitted that, though some of the petitioners had earlier approached this Court, seeking extension of time and the said request was rejected by the learned Single Judge and also by the Division Bench, however, such officers had approached the Apex Court in S.L.P.No.3634/2006 and connected matters. The Apex Court by order dated 22.2.2008 was pleased to grant leave. After granting leave, the I.B.A. started negotiations for second option. Accordingly, the meeting held on 25/26.2.2008 and as a result of such negotiation, a joint note came to be signed on 27.4.2010. The Apex Court by order dated 22.2.2008 was pleased to grant leave. After granting leave, the I.B.A. started negotiations for second option. Accordingly, the meeting held on 25/26.2.2008 and as a result of such negotiation, a joint note came to be signed on 27.4.2010. Having regard to these circumstances and the joint note providing for exercise of second option, the petitioners, who had approached the Apex Court, filed a miscellaneous application seeking to withdraw the Civil Appeals by specifically mentioning that, in view of the settlement providing for second option, they may be permitted to withdraw the Civil Appeals. Accordingly, the Apex Court by its order dated 18.4.2012 permitted all the appellants to withdraw the Civil Appeals and the order of dismissal of the Civil Appeals as withdrawn reads as under: "These applications have been filed by the appellants to withdraw the appeals in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 in I.A. No…. in Civil Appeal No.1366 of 2008 says that he does not have any objection. In view of the above, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn." 20. The rights of the Bank officials, who had earlier filed writ petitions and the time was not extended, it did not extinguish their right to exercise their second option. The second option is provided to those, who could not exercise their option at the first instance. The second option that was provided was open to such officers. There is no bar or exclusion to exercise the second option. It is also not the terms of the joint note. 21. He further contended that, there is no distinction between the retirement on superannuation, voluntary retirement or voluntary retirement under the Special Scheme as long as the officers possess a minimum qualifying service, they can exercise the option for pensionary benefit by complying with the other terms and conditions therein. In this regard, he referred to the definition of "retired" under Clause-2 sub-clause (x) of the Pension Regulations 1995 and submitted that, Pension Regulations provide for three kinds of retirement viz., (1) Retirement on attaining the age of superannuation; (2) Voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 29 of the Regulations; (3) Premature retirement before attaining the age of superannuation. In this regard, he referred to the definition of "retired" under Clause-2 sub-clause (x) of the Pension Regulations 1995 and submitted that, Pension Regulations provide for three kinds of retirement viz., (1) Retirement on attaining the age of superannuation; (2) Voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 29 of the Regulations; (3) Premature retirement before attaining the age of superannuation. He also referred to Clause-19 of the O.S.R. and submitted that, the purpose of Clause19 of the O.S.R. is to determine the age of retirement, as the Clause-28 and Clause-29 of the Pension Regulations 1995, do not fix the age of retirement, they only provide for retirement on superannuation, voluntary retirement or special voluntary retirement, but as far as determination of age is concerned, it is determined in pursuance of Clause-19 of OSR, as such, invoking of Clause-19 and treating some of the voluntary retirement as under Clause 19 does not make any difference between the voluntary retirement under Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations and retirement under the scheme under Clause 19 of O.S.R. Since all these petitioners have qualifying service as on 29.9.1995, some of them retired before signing of the joint note, some of them continued in service, when the petitioners possess the minimum qualifying service, use of the phrase 'voluntary retirement' under Clause 19 of O.S.R., does not make any difference as far as exercising the option under the joint note is concerned. 22. He also submitted that, when the settlement was arrived, the Banks were aware that the employees, who were in service as on 29.9.1995, who continued as on 27.4.2010 or, who had retired before the date of joint note will all be eligible for the benefit under the Pension Scheme, as such, the financial estimation was known and accordingly, the Banks were aware of the financial consequences. Further, the rejection of their request for pension is not in terms of the joint note, but it is in terms of the circular, none of the rejection/communication have referred to the joint note, but they refer to the circular, as such, even if there is anything contained in the circular, which is contrary to the joint note, is not sustainable nor is binding on the petitioners. 23. Sri. 23. Sri. V.S. Naik, learned Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners, who had exercised option under the "Exit Option Scheme", though it is termed as Exit Option, but when the document was signed, it was treated as voluntary retirement. Further, even the Exit Option itself contemplated that the persons exercising the Exit Option are also eligible for exercising option for Pension Scheme, as the Pension Scheme was made applicable. Even otherwise, he relied on an unreported judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P.No.9069/2011 between Sreeram Ramamurthy and Andhra Bank and submitted that, while interpreting Clause 2 subclause (y), the definition of "retirement", the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that, the Joint Note as well as the circular refer to the retirees from the bank and the word "retiree" in generic term includes all categories of retirees. Restricting the meaning of the said word only to those, who retired voluntarily or on superannuation, is not only against the object and purpose of the agreement under the Joint Note and the circular but would also amount to reading something else therein. Secondly, the definition of retirement, as defined under Clause-2 sub-clause (y) covers all cases of cessation from service. Hence, the word 'retired' used in the Joint Note and circular has to be understood broadly, as per definition. 24. He submitted that, even under the Exit Option Scheme itself provides that the persons opting for Exit Option are entitled for the pension. Though retirement is under Exit Scheme, but it was treated as voluntary retirement, as such, there was no reason to deny the benefit under the joint note for pensionary benefit. 25. Sri. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the respondents submitted that, joint note is a contract between the Officers' Association and the Indian Bank Association. The terms of the contract cannot be altered or interpreted, they are binding, as they are, on the parties to the contract. If one party wants to alter, the second party has to have the notice and it must be in terms of Clauses-13 and 14 of the joint note, as such, petitioners cannot file a writ petition to address their grievance on interpretation of the terms of the joint note. If one party wants to alter, the second party has to have the notice and it must be in terms of Clauses-13 and 14 of the joint note, as such, petitioners cannot file a writ petition to address their grievance on interpretation of the terms of the joint note. He further submitted that, the term "resignation" and "retirement", both are not synonyms, they have a different meanings resignation is forfeiture of one's claim, retirement is happening of an event; resignation may occur at any time, but retirement occurs at certain point of time, as such, there is no reason to treat the resignation as retirement to invoke the terms of the settlement. 26. To support his contentions, he relied on the judgment reported in (2004) 4 SCC 412 in the matter of UCO Bank and Others versus Sanwar Mal and submitted that, the terms agreed by the parties are binding on them, neither the court nor the parties can unilaterally alter the terms of contract, once they are agreed and signed. 27. Sri. Ramdas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the I.B.A. referred to bipartite settlement and the Pension Regulations 1995 and also O.S.R. and submitted that, before referring to the joint note, the background of the joint note is necessary. Various financial implications are involved. Having regard to the financial implications and having regard to the long drawn negotiation, joint note came to be signed and joint note restricts the benefit only to such employees, who covered under it. 28. The word "retirement" in the joint note is referable to Clause 2 sub-clause (y) of the Pension Regulations 1995. The definition of "retirement" only includes the retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 and premature retirement by bank before attaining the age of superannuation. If the Officer had retired on attaining the age of superannuation and if he falls in terms of Clause (1) or Clause (2), he becomes entitled for exercising his option, if one retires under Regulation 29 on voluntary retirement, he is also covered under the joint note, but if the Bank had introduced a scheme in exercise of its power under Clause-19 of the O.S.R., such retirements are not covered under Regulation 28 or Regulation 29. He referred to Clause-7 of the joint note and pointed out that, in respect of special voluntary retirement, which was introduced for a period of only one month in 2000, such of the employees, who come under the special voluntary retirement, who had exercised their option under the special voluntary retirement, their interest was protected by specially providing under Clause-7 of the joint note, any other retirement or cessation from service is not covered under the joint note, as such, invoking every other retirement under the joint note would run counter to the terms agreed by both the parties. Since it is an agreement arrived by both the parties, it is not open to interpret to mean and to include any other categories within the ambit of word "retired". He also referred to Regulation-29 and submitted that, voluntary retirement means, only under Regulation 29 and not otherwise, all other retirements come under Clause-19 of OSR, as such, such retirements are not included within the terms of the joint note. 29. He referred to fourth proviso to Clause-19 of the O.S.R. wherein the Regulations may provide for fixing the retirement age even earlier to superannuation. However, any such benefit given to the employees is not covered under Regulation-29 of the Pension Regulations. He referred to the documents, to point out that, the terms of discussion and negotiation did not include all kinds of cessation from service, but specifically agreed only in respect of the retirement benefit, which is stipulated under Regulation 28 and Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations. He referred to Regulation 28 to point out that, special voluntary retirement has also become part of Regulation 28 so as to enable them to opt for pensionary benefit in terms of the joint note, as such, any other interpretation is not permissible in terms of settlement. To support his submission, he relied on the following decisions: 1) AIR 1977 SC 322 in the matter of Herbertsons Ltd. versus The Workmen of Herbertsons Ltd. And others; 2) 1999(4) Kar. L.J. 628 (DB) in the matter of Canara Bank, Head Office, J.C.Road, Bangalore versusB. M. Ramachandra and others; 3) (2001) 9 SCC 318 in the matter of Bank of India versusIndu Rajagopalan and others; 4) (1981) 4 SCC 627 in the matter of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. versustheir Workmen. 30. Sri. L.J. 628 (DB) in the matter of Canara Bank, Head Office, J.C.Road, Bangalore versusB. M. Ramachandra and others; 3) (2001) 9 SCC 318 in the matter of Bank of India versusIndu Rajagopalan and others; 4) (1981) 4 SCC 627 in the matter of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. versustheir Workmen. 30. Sri. S.V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel appearing for the State Bank of Mysore, adopted the argument of Sri. Ramdas, learned Senior Counsel. In addition to that, he submitted that, the respondent for whom he is appearing has introduced the Exit Option Scheme and it was not the voluntary retirement or retirement, it was a special scheme under which the employees were provided for voluntary exit from service to avoid frustration and stagnation. Such exit policy or Scheme is not contemplated within the joint note nor it was a part of negotiation. In addition to the same, for exiting from service of the bank, special incentives by way of ex gratia were provided, as such, such officers cannot themselves equate on par with the persons retiring on superannuation or voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, the Exit Option Scheme is under Clause-19 sub-clause (1) of O.S.R. Hence, case of such officers is not covered under the joint note. 31. Sri. Radhesh Prabhu, learned Counsel appearing for some of the Banks submitted that, all the petitioners in the writ petitions he is appearing, have retired after 27.4.2010, they all fall under Clause-3 of the joint note, however, they do not fall within the term "retired" as their retirement is under Clause-19 sub-clause (1) of the O.S.R. He also submitted that, resignation is different from retirement, as such, person, who has resigned from service, cannot exercise his option treating himself as a retired employee. Further submitted that, once the option is exercised by filing a writ petition and after disposal of the writ petition and writ appeal, very same petitioners cannot once again exercise very same option, though it is offered second time. If they have lost the option, there is no right to claim one more option for the same purpose. He also relied on the judgment reported in (2004) 4 SCC412 in the matter of UCO Bank and Others versusSanwar Mal and the judgment reported in AIR 2011 SC 2990 in the matter of Sheelkumar Jain versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. 32. Sri. He also relied on the judgment reported in (2004) 4 SCC412 in the matter of UCO Bank and Others versusSanwar Mal and the judgment reported in AIR 2011 SC 2990 in the matter of Sheelkumar Jain versus The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.& Ors. 32. Sri. S.K.M. Shetty, learned Counsel appearing for the State Bank of Hyderabad submitted that, before 2001, there is no voluntary retirement scheme, the State Bank of Hyderabad has a different policy of qualifying service from 15 to 20 years and the minimum age of 50 years. Though he admitted that, both the petitioners had put in service of 38 years and 34 years, however, they do not fall either under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme or Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The voluntary retirement was given only on medical ground and as such, the petitioners do not fall under the category of voluntary retirement. 33. By way of reply, Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel once again referred to Clause 2 sub-clause (y) of the Pension Regulation 1995 to submit that, "retired" as defined at Clause 2 subclause (x) includes deemed retirement also and submitted that, the word referred to in the joint note is retired and not retirement. Even otherwise, he submitted that, on interpretation two views are possible, the view which is beneficial to the employee must be adopted. Further submitted that, all the officers have put in more than 20 years of service, they fulfill all the requirement under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations and if their retirement is voluntary retirement, having fulfilled qualifying service and other criteria, there is no reason to put them in another category to deny the benefit of voluntary retirement. He also submitted that, civil appeals are withdrawn onlybecause there was a settlement and joint note, which enable the appellants before the Supreme Court to exercise second option. As such, they have not relinquished their right to exercise their option. 34. Having regard to the rival contentions raised by both the parties, the points that arise for consideration in these writ petitions are: 1. Whether the dismissal of Civil Appeal Nos.1364, 1365, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1371/2008 disentitle the appellants therein from invoking the second option under joint note dated 27.4.2010? 2. Whether the Officer is tendering his resignation even after having rendered qualifying service becomes ineligible to exercise his option under the joint note? 3. Whether the dismissal of Civil Appeal Nos.1364, 1365, 1366, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1371/2008 disentitle the appellants therein from invoking the second option under joint note dated 27.4.2010? 2. Whether the Officer is tendering his resignation even after having rendered qualifying service becomes ineligible to exercise his option under the joint note? 3. Whether the voluntary retirement under Clause 19 of O.S.R. is covered under the terms of the joint note? 4. Whether Exit Option Scheme is outside the scope of joint note? 5. Whether the relief sought for by the petitioners involves the interpretation and alteration of the terms of the joint note? Point No.1: 35. Whether some of the petitioners, who had earlier filed writ petitions seeking extension of time to exercise option at the first instance, having failed to get the relief in the writ petitions and confirmed in writ appeals, have lost their right to exercise their second option. 36. It is not in dispute that, writ petitions were filed seeking extension of time to opt for pension, and their writ petitions and also appeals have been dismissed. However, it is pertinent to note that, they had filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court and the Apex Court by order dated 22.2.2008 had granted leave. While the civil appeals were pending, the negotiations started between the Association of Banks and the Association of the Employees of the Banks and thereafter, the joint note came to be signed on 27.4.2010. The Clause-D of the joint note reads as under: "(D).-The United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU) representing workmen and officers in Banks were requesting to allow another option to those who were in the service of the Banks prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks / 26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and continued in service on or after that date and did not opt for pension when offered as per the Scheme. IBA was not agreeable to the demand and reiterated its inability to extend the present Pension Scheme to those who had not opted for pension on cost consideration. However, both the parties agreed to discuss alternate proposals. The same was incorporated in the fifth paragraph of the Joint Note on salary revision for officers dated 2nd June 2005. IBA was not agreeable to the demand and reiterated its inability to extend the present Pension Scheme to those who had not opted for pension on cost consideration. However, both the parties agreed to discuss alternate proposals. The same was incorporated in the fifth paragraph of the Joint Note on salary revision for officers dated 2nd June 2005. The UFBU pursued the demand inspite of the above position and offered to share a portion of the initial finding liability on one-time basis for extending pension to the non optees." 37. By protracted negotiations and series of talks, the employees agreed to contribute Rs.1,800/-crores, being 30% of the estimated funding gap for extending pension to those employees who were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 n the case of Nationalized banks and 26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and continue to be in service thereafter and did not opt for pension. They had also requested to extend the Pension Scheme. Accordingly, it was agreed that: "Another option for joining the existing Pension Scheme shall be extended to those Officers...." (2) (a) who were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks/26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and continue in the service of the bank on the date of this Joint Note; (b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer, to become a member of the Pension Fund and (c) authorise the Trust of the Provident Fund of the bank to transfer the entire contribution of the bank along with interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Pension Fund. (3) (a) were in service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks/26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and retired after that date and prior tot he date of this Joint Note; (b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer to become a member of the Pension Fund and (c) refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of the banks contribution to the Provident Fund and interest accrued there received by the officer on retirement together with his share in contribution towards meeting 30% of Rs.3115 crores which is estimated and reckoned as the funding gap for those eligible under Clause (3), (4) and (5) of the Joint Note. On an individual basis, the payment over and above the bank's contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon has been worked out at 56% of the said amount of bank's contribution to Provident Fund and interest thereon received by the officer on retirement". 38. From the joint note, it is clear that, the joint note provided an option for joining the existing Pension Scheme to those, who were in service prior to 29.9.1995 and continued as on the date of joint note or retired prior to signing of the joint note. It does not exclude any employee who comes within the terms of the joint note. It is not in dispute that, such petitioners had not exercised option at the first instance, as such, they had sought for extension of time to exercise option, it was not extended. It means that, such of the employee did not exercise their option. It is not the case of the Bank that though such petitioners exercised their option in time, but was rejected. 39. In this case, since the second option admittedly was given to such employees, who had not exercised their option, though some of these petitioners did invoke earlier option and some of them were not successful in seeking extension, it is not that they had exercised their option and it is rejected, what is said is that, they could not exercise their option in time. As such, it means that, they had not exercised their option. As such, it means that, they had not exercised their option. Not exercising the option was also for the reason that the circular and Regulation of the Banks stipulated a condition that the officer or employee, who is involved in the strike, will not be entitled to claim the benefit under the existing pension scheme. This was not the term of negotiation between the Employees' Association and the Association of the Bank, as such, most of the employees had not exercised their option and it is stated that, only 48% of the employees opted and 52% employees did not opt. Large number of employees could not exercise their option under the fear of forfeiture of their claim on account of one way or the other, if they are treated as involved in a strike against the banks, this became an issue for negotiation for the second option. Some of the petitioners, who had approached this Court, had only sought for extension of time and if that extension is not granted, it means that, they did not exercise their option earlier, as such, they also became entitled for exercising their option. Further the Apex Court had taken note of the fact that, in view of the settlement providing for second option, the Civil Appeals were withdrawn and it is not an abandonment of right to exercise an option. Under the terms of joint note, all that is required s that, the employee of the Bank must be in service prior to 29.9.1995 in case of Nationalized Banks and 26.3.1996 in case of other Banks, either continued in service or retired as on the date of joint note, if he is qualified, such employee is entitled to exercise his option. When the retirement of Bank employees either on attaining the age of superannuation or on voluntary, if he has rendered the qualifying service and agreeable to fulfill other conditions as stipulated under the joint agreement, he is entitled to exercise the option for pension. 40. No distinction can be made between two employees, who have rendered the requisite qualifying service and who are eligible to opt for voluntary retirement, but one opt to resign, another opt to take voluntary retirement, as both have requisite qualifications to opt for voluntary retirement. 40. No distinction can be made between two employees, who have rendered the requisite qualifying service and who are eligible to opt for voluntary retirement, but one opt to resign, another opt to take voluntary retirement, as both have requisite qualifications to opt for voluntary retirement. To deny the benefit to opt for pension under joint note only on the ground that, he has resigned, such interpretation would amount to creating discrimination amongst the similarly placed employees, and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 41. Though there is no reference to resigned employees, however, this Court as well as the Apex Court on consideration have held that, the employee who has rendered qualifying service for voluntary retirement, but has resigned, is also entitled for the pensionary benefits. A Division Bench of this Court in the earlier decision in Smt. Satya Srinath versus Syndicate Bank reported in ILR 2003 KAR 2605 has held that, "In deciding the entitlement of an employee for pension and other pensionary benefits, the Court should necessarily bear in mind the well settled position in law that where an employee put in more than minimum qualifying service for pension under the relevant Regulations or the Rules, even in case of resignation after putting in the qualifying service, the employee would be entitled to pension and otherwise the rule denying the pension merely on the ground that the employee has resigned even though the employee has put in required service prescribed under the relevant Regulations or the Rules, will be violative of Article 14 postulates and the provision of Article 16 of the Constitution." Thus, from the observation in the said judgment, makes it clear that, it is not the word "resignation" or "retirement" is important to opt for pensionary benefit, but, what is important is, whether the officer was having a minimum qualifying service to opt for pensionary benefit. The said judgment is followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.24158-24160/2011 and connected matters dated 18th April 2012 wherein the Vijaya Bank had rejected the claim of an employee of the Bank for pensionary benefit on the ground that, he has resigned and not entitled for pension in terms of Clause 7 of the Circular, the Clause 7 reads as under: "This option to join the Pension Scheme shall not be extended to those employees (Officers and Award Staff) who ceased to be in the service of the Bank in any manner other than the categories mentioned in the Regulation." 42. The petitioners therein had tendered their resignation. Since it was other than the categories mentioned under Clause-7 of the circular, the request of such resigned employees was rejected, and the said employees approached this Court. This Court relying on the decision in Smt. Satya Srinath's case and also in Sheelkumar Jain's case held that, Clause-7 of the Circular No.10191 dated 7.9.2010 is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, has quashed the same. 43. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2956-2977/2012 dated 30th July 2012 at para-6 and 7 observes thus: "6. It is also noteworthy that attention of the learned Single Judge was not drawn to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank Bangalore versusSatya Srinath upholding the decision of the Division Bench of this court, which was duly reflected upon in the impugned order. Satya Srinath was held by its employer, the Syndicate Bank, to have resigned by operation of a separate deeming Regulations. The employer, the Syndicate Bank did not hold any Disciplinary Enquiry and thus, the cession of services could not have been construed as punitive in nature. Once again the Apex Court emphasized the difference between 'resignation' and 'retirement' and directed that since the respondent therein had put in 20 years of qualifying services, she was entitled tot he benefits of the Tension Scheme'. 7. We must immediately pen down the circumstances in which the Writ Petitioners opted to 'resign' rather than 'retire'. At the material point of time, the Regulations debarred retirement where the concerned employees had participated in a strike. It is not disputed that from the very inception of its inclusion this clause was remonstrated against by the Unions, leading eventually to its withdrawal altogether. At the material point of time, the Regulations debarred retirement where the concerned employees had participated in a strike. It is not disputed that from the very inception of its inclusion this clause was remonstrated against by the Unions, leading eventually to its withdrawal altogether. At that stage, the employees were given a second opportunity/option to opt for the pension scheme by returning the benefits already received by them and making pecuniary adjustment so as to fall in line with the pension formulations and calculation. Immediately, the Writ petitioners had exercised the second option but it was the bank which declined to admit them to the benefits of pension scheme. As in the other precedents, the fact that they had already put in requisite number of years of service qualifying them to pensionary benefits in accordance with the modified pension scheme, impel us likewise to hold them entitled to those benefits. 44. Thus, from the above observation, it leaves no doubt in my mind that, what is required is not the nature of retirement, but what is required is minimum qualifying service and the fulfillment of all other conditions and not the manner in which his service came to an end, if such cessasion was not punitive, but voluntary or under any scheme formulated by the Banks. If the resignation was not punitive and was voluntary and such employee had to his credit minimum qualifying service, such employee if complies with the other conditions, he cannot be denied of the pensionary benefit. 45. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in Lt. Col. P.S. Bhargava (supra), has observed that: "an Officer has to his credit the minimum period of qualifying service, he earns a right to get pension and as the Regulations stand that right to get pension can be taken away only if an order is passed under Regulations 3 or 16." 46. Col. P.S. Bhargava (supra), has observed that: "an Officer has to his credit the minimum period of qualifying service, he earns a right to get pension and as the Regulations stand that right to get pension can be taken away only if an order is passed under Regulations 3 or 16." 46. Thus, looking from any angle, if the resignation is not the term, which bars the officers of the Banks from opting the Pension Scheme, there is no reason to restrict the meaning of the word "retirement", retirement means cessation from bank's service either on attaining the age of superannuation or by voluntary retirement, what is to be seen is, the purpose for which and for whose benefit, the Scheme is introduced, the Scheme itself postulates that the employees, who were in service prior to 29.9.1995 continued or retired as on the date of the joint note. 47. Hence, I hold that the officers, who have resigned after having rendered qualifying service and who fulfill other conditions for opting the pension under the joint note, are entitled for pension. Point No.3: 48. As regard to third point, it was argued at length interalia contending that, the retirement under Clause 28 and 29 of the Pension Regulations, is different from special retirement under Clause-19 of the O.S.R. However, it was not disputed by the learned Counsels for the respondents -Banks that, the petitioners have rendered minimum qualifying service in the Bank and they could have applied for voluntary retirement under Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations 1995. It is also not the case of the respondents that, the pension scheme is only applicable to the employees, who had retired on attaining the age of superannuation. But it is admitted that the pension scheme is applicable to the employees, who have taken voluntary retirement under Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations of 1995. 49. It is also not the case of the respondents that, the resignation or special retirement or retirement under Exit Option, were by way of punitive measure. 50. It is also pertinent to note that, most of the Bank employees did not opt for pension at the first instance out of fear of forfeiture on the ground of their alleged involvement in strike against the Banks. It is in these circumstances, some of the employees, instead of opting for pension opted for different mode of retirement. 50. It is also pertinent to note that, most of the Bank employees did not opt for pension at the first instance out of fear of forfeiture on the ground of their alleged involvement in strike against the Banks. It is in these circumstances, some of the employees, instead of opting for pension opted for different mode of retirement. As otherwise they would have also exercised their option for pension at the first instance itself. 51. It is also pertinent to note that, it is because of the forfeiture clause, negotiations started once again for second option and joint note was signed giving second option. Hence, the second option was given with intention to provide opportunity to such employees. 52. As far as the word "retirement" is concerned, both "retired" and "retirement" are defined under Clause 2(x) and (y) of the Pension Regulations 1995. 53. The word "retired" includes deemed retirement also, i.e., cessation from service. 54. The word "retirement" as defined under Clause 2 sub-clause (y) includes (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 these regulations; (c) on premature retirement by the Bank before attaining the age of superannuation specified in Service Regulations or Settlement. 55. As far as clauses (a) and (b) are concerned, both are covered under the Pension Scheme. As far as Clause (c) is concerned, it is premature retirement by the Bank not by the voluntary act of the employee. It is not the case of the respondent -Bank that, any of the petitioners were forced by the Bank to go for premature retirement. Petitioners' case does not fall under Clause 2(y)(c) of the Pension Regulations 1995. However, the retirement of the petitioners is sought to be distinguished on the ground that, the retirement of the petitioners do not fall under Regulation 28 or 29, as, is not special voluntary retirement nor on attaining the age of superannuation nor it is voluntary retirement, but such termination comes under Clause 19 of the O.S.R. However, to seek for voluntary retirement under Regulation 29, the employee must have rendered minimum 20 years of qualifying service and fulfills all other conditions, such as, issuing notice of his intention to retire by giving notice of three months in advance. Regulation 29 reads as under: 29. Regulation 29 reads 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 any 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 on 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. 3)(a) An employeed 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 tot he 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 employee 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 the effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from 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. 56. To opt for voluntary retirement under Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations, the employee must have: (a) rendered minimum 20 years of qualifying service; (b) by giving notice, not less than three months; (c) subject to acceptance by the authority. The Regulation 29 also provides for exempting the requirement of giving three months' notice. 57. It is not the case of the respondent -Banks that, any of the petitioners had not put in qualifying service or it violates any of the conditions under Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations. 58. Hence, if the employees who have been qualified to opt for voluntary retirement, but has opted for different mode of retirement, he cannot be discriminated on the ground that, it does not fall under Clause 29 of the Regulations. Such an interpretation would be discriminating and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. No two similarly situated employees could be discriminated on the nomenclature or terminology of their cessation from service. 59. Referring to the retirement of the petitioners under Clause 19 of the O.S.R. is a wrong notion. Clause 19 of the O.S.R. deals with power of the Board to determine the age of retirement. Neither Clause 28 nor Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations deals with fixation of age of superannuation or retirement under any scheme. 60. 59. Referring to the retirement of the petitioners under Clause 19 of the O.S.R. is a wrong notion. Clause 19 of the O.S.R. deals with power of the Board to determine the age of retirement. Neither Clause 28 nor Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations deals with fixation of age of superannuation or retirement under any scheme. 60. To determine the age of superannuation or for premature or under any special scheme, the Board is conferred with power to determine the age of retirement or earlier age of retirement under special voluntary retirement or voluntary retirement. Hence, the argument that the retirement under Clause 19 of the O.S.R. is different from retirement under Clause 28 and 29 of the Pension Regulations does not merit. Clause 19 referred to under the Scheme for retirement is for determination of age of retirement. For the purpose of prescribing the age of superannuation or prescribing the age under special scheme or voluntary retirement, the Board exercises its power under Clause 19 of O.S.R. Hence, the scope of Clause 19 is different from the scope of the Pension Regulations under Clause 28 and 29. Regulations have to be read and understood having regard to the purpose and the context of provision. 61. The Apex Court in the case of Sheel Kumar (supra), in the case of resignation itself, wherein in respect of an officer, who had tendered his resignation was denied of the pensionary benefits. Referring to the pension on voluntary retirement, having noticed that the appellant before the Supreme Court had completed 20 years of qualifying service and had given 90 days' notice, it is observed at para-13 as under: "13. The aforesaid authorities would show that the Court will have to construe the statutory provisions in each case to find out whether the termination of service of any employee was a termination by way of resignation or a termination by way of voluntary retirement and while construing the statutory provisions, the Court will have to keep in mind the purposes of the statutory provisions. The general purpose of the Pension Scheme, 1995, read as a whole, is to grant pensionary benefits to employees, who had rendered service in the Insurance Companies and had retired after putting in the qualifying service in the Insurance Companies. The general purpose of the Pension Scheme, 1995, read as a whole, is to grant pensionary benefits to employees, who had rendered service in the Insurance Companies and had retired after putting in the qualifying service in the Insurance Companies. Clauses 22 and 30 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 cannot be so construed as to deprive of an employee of an insurance Company, such as the appellant, who had put in the qualifying service for pension and who had voluntarily given up his service after serving 90 days notice in accordance with sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Scheme, 1976 and after his notice was accepted by the appointing authority." The observation of the Apex Court amplifies that, grant of pensionary benefit to the employees, who had rendered service and retired after putting in qualifying service, cannot be so construed as to deprive of an employee of pension, who had voluntarily had given up his service. The Apex Court even in case of "resignation" has treated that, it is the qualifying service that is important and not the term of cessation of the employment, it is in this context, observed that, the Court will have to construe the statutory provision having regard to the purpose of the statute. Thus, from the said observation, it is clear that, the Court must consider the purpose for which the scheme is introduced. This Court following the decision in Sheet Kumar's case in W.P.Nos.24158-24160/2011 has held that, even if it is resignation, if the officer has rendered qualifying service, he is entitled for the benefits under the pension scheme. 62. The learned Single Judge of this Court in another W.P.Nos.3919 to 3994/1996 dated 20th September 1996 having regard to various clauses of the Pension Regulations 1995 at para-9, has observed as under: "9. I do not see any distinction amongst the retired employees. If a proper construction are given to the Regulations cited supra, in my view the Bank cannot make a distinction among the employees who retired under the scheme of voluntary retirement scheme and employees who retried otherwise because the term 'retirement' which occurs in the Regulations includes voluntary retirement. I do not see any reason to confine voluntary retirement only under Regulation 29 of the Regulations. I do not see any reason to confine voluntary retirement only under Regulation 29 of the Regulations. If such a construction is given to Regulation 29 of the Regulations, it offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners." 63. A Division Bench of this Court in another case reported in 1999(4) Kar. L.J. 628 (DB) (supra) at para-15, in case of voluntary retirement where the package was received by an employee has observed thus: "15. We are also not impressed by the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that as the voluntarily retired employees had drawn the package of terminal benefits many years before the enforcement of the Regulations, they were not entitled to the grant of pensionary benefit as allegedly there did not exist a relationship of employer and employee at the time of the enforcement of the Regulation..." Even in case of an employee receiving the benefit under package scheme, but was qualified for pension, still he is entitled for pension benefit though he approached belatedly. 64. In these cases, facts are not in dispute that, all these petitioners were in service prior to 29.9.1995 and they have put in more than 20 years of qualifying service as per Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, all of them were qualified to opt for voluntary retirement under Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations. Maybe, they might have been retired or ceased to be an employee under different schemes, but none of them either have been forced to retire or their cessation from service was, as a punitive measure. 65. Now as far as benefit of pensionary benefit is concerned, pension is not granted by way of charity or bounty to the employee, but it is given having regard to number of years of service rendered in the establishment or bank. It is not all the employees, whose services were terminated from the Banks, would automatically become entitled for pension. Pension is granted if the employee of the Bank has rendered qualifying service, that is, in recognition of their number of years of service in the establishment, by way of compensation for the past service the pension is granted to the employee to spend his retired life. Pension is granted if the employee of the Bank has rendered qualifying service, that is, in recognition of their number of years of service in the establishment, by way of compensation for the past service the pension is granted to the employee to spend his retired life. The Apex Court in a case reported in AIR 1992 SC 767 in the matter of All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association and others versus Union of India and others has observed thus: "5. The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by this Court time and again. It is not a charity or bounty nor is it gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering long service and is often described as deferred portion of compensation for past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee. Such social security plans are consistent with the socioeconomic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution." A Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Nakara's case reported in AIR 1983 SC 13 has observed that, classification of pensionary benefits on the basis of the retiring date is not founded on any rational principle and is, therefore, void as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The object of providing a pension or liberalisation thereof is to provide a decent standard of life to the working people after their superannuation. Hence, where the retirees belong to the same class, no unequal treatment can be permitted on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. Though such a question does not arise in these cases, as all these employees, they fall in one class, namely, all of them were in service prior to 29.9.1995, some continued, some retired on the date of signing of the joint note. All such employees become class by themselves. Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit the classification amongst the similarly placed employees. Making distinction amongst such employees on the ground of retiring under different title or head would be nothing but violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 66. All such employees become class by themselves. Article 14 of the Constitution does not permit the classification amongst the similarly placed employees. Making distinction amongst such employees on the ground of retiring under different title or head would be nothing but violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 66. Hence, considering from any angle, I do not find there is any distinction between the employees retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme or under the Exit Policy Scheme or under any other nomenclature as long as they have put in a number of qualifying service and eligible for voluntary retirement, all will form class by themselves and are covered under the joint note, to opt for pension under the Pension Regulations 1995. 67. Even in case of "exit policy", the terms of the said policy itself provide for pension. Banks themselves have understood that cessation from service under different policies or schemes will not bar the employees from opting for pension, if they have rendered qualifying service. Clause-4 sub-clause (ii) of the Exit Option Scheme reads as under: "However, pension shall be payable only to those officers who are eligible for the same, in terms of SBM Employees Pension Fund Rules/SBM Officers Service Rules. It is further clarified that officers exercising option under Exit Option Scheme and those who would be permitted to exit, would not be eligible for pension, unless they have completed 20 years of pensionable service under the applicable rules." Thus, there is no reason to keep out some employees, who have rendered qualifying service, from the purview of pension. 68. Having regard to the observations and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court and having regard to the pensionary scheme, I find that there is no reason to deny the pensionary benefit as long as they fulfill the condition of minimum qualifying service and also fulfill that they were in service prior to 29.9.1995 and either continued or retired as on the date of joint note dated 27.4.2010, if they agree to fulfill other conditions, if any, in this joint note or Pension Regulations. 69. Accordingly, I answer point No.4 in favour of the petitioners. 69. Accordingly, I answer point No.4 in favour of the petitioners. Hence, for the reasons stated above, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the impugned circulars, orders and communication in the respective Writ Petitions, stand quashed and all the petitioners are entitled to exercise their option for Pension under the Pension Regulations. Banks are directed to accept their option and grant pension by including them under the Pension Scheme in terms of the joint note and the Pension Regulations. (The last sentence is substituted Vide order dtd. 19.10.2012) All the Banks are directed to comply with the order of this court within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/-JUDGE SBAI: WP Nos.7245/2011 19.10.2012 & connected matters ORDER ON IA.2/2012 IA.2/2012 is filed for correction of the final order passed by this Court on 30.8.2012 inter-alia seeking the correction of the sentences "Learned counsel for the Indian Banks Association submits that three months' time may be given for compliance. Accordingly, three months' time is granted for compliance from the date of receipt of copy of this order." Learned counsel for the Indian Banks Association submits that the Court had directed the Banks to comply with the direction. Considering the said submission, the sentences read as "Learned counsel for the Indian Banks Association submits that three months time may be given for compliance. Accordingly, three months' time is granted for compliance from the date of receipt of copy of this order" is substituted with the sentence "All the Banks are directed to comply with the order of this Court within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order." Accordingly, IA.2/2012 is disposed of. Office is directed to issue the corrected copy of the order dated 30.8.2012.