Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—These twin writ petitions are founded on identical facts, therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The cause of retired employees/officers of the respondent insurance companies in these petitions is espoused by the petitioner Society, registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act 1958, having registration No.298. Enumerating the objects of the Society, it is pleaded in the writ petitions that the same has come into offing for the welfare of retired personnel of the respondent insurance companies with the sole object of voicing their afflictions before the insurance companies and to protect their rights which had accrued to them after their retirement. A resolution of Society, authorizing its Vice-President, to launch the litigations is also placed on record. 3. Facts necessary for appreciation of the lis involved in these petitions are recapitulated as under: 4. Members of the petitioner Society were employed in the respondent insurance companies in the ministerial cadre employees and the officers’ cadre. In the year 2004, when they were in employment, schemes known as General Insurance Employees’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004 and General Insurance Officers’ Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2004 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Scheme of 2004’) came into offing vis-a-vis ministerial cadre employees and officers respectively. Vide Notification dated 1st of January 2004, the said Scheme of 2004 was promulgated by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs), (Insurance Division), in exercise of powers under Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972. The Scheme of 2004 is floated as a measure of “Golden Hand Shake” by offering payment of ex-gratia amount and other benefits for the ministerial employees and officers of the insurance companies desirous to opt for voluntary retirement from their respective services. In the Scheme of 2004, for ministerial employees and officers language employed in Para 6 is identical. For convenience, recitals contained in Para 6 of the employees Scheme of 2004 under the caption “other benefits”, are incorporated as infra: 6. In the Scheme of 2004, for ministerial employees and officers language employed in Para 6 is identical. For convenience, recitals contained in Para 6 of the employees Scheme of 2004 under the caption “other benefits”, are incorporated as infra: 6. Other benefits.- (1) An employee opting for the scheme shall also be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia amount mentioned in para 5, namely:- (a) Provident fund, (b) gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) or gratuity payable under the Rationalisation Scheme, as the case may be; (c) pension (including commuted value of pension) as per General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme 1995, if eligible. However, the additional notional benefit of the five years of added service as stipulated in para 30 of the said Pension Scheme shall not be admissible for the purpose of determining the quantum of pension and commutation of pension. (d) leave encashment (2) An employee who is opting for the scheme shall not be entitled to avail Leave Travel Subsidy and also encashment of leave while in service during the period of sixty days from the date of notification of this scheme. The period of operation of the Scheme was mentioned as sixty days from the date of Notification in the official gazette in Para 4 of the Scheme of 2004. The members of the petitioner Society sought voluntary retirement from the services as ministerial employees and officers by submitting their options and in terms of the Scheme all of them were granted voluntary retirement from their services. The genesis of these litigations is that after introduction of General Insurance (Rationalization and Revision of Pay Scale and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Amendment Scheme 2005 and similar scheme vis-a-vis officers of the insurance companies (hereinafter referred to as 'Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005'), which was made effective from 1.8.2002, the members of the petitioner Society were not allowed the fruits flowing from the said Scheme inasmuch as the benefit of revision in the pay scale and the consequential benefit of revision in the pension and other retiral benefits was not allowed to them. The grievance of the members of the petitioner Society in this behalf is that when the Scheme has been given retrospective effect and the crucial date is anterior to their voluntary retirement, how they can be put to disadvantage and be deprived of the benefits of the Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005. Scheme of Revision of Pay Scales, 2005 was published by the Notification dated 21st of December 2005 with the clear stipulation in Para 2 “Save as otherwise provided in this Scheme, this Scheme shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of August 2002”. The embargo, as provided under the Notification dated 21st of December 2005 to deny the benefit under the said Scheme is clear and unambiguous from Sub-Para (3) of Para 1 of the Scheme, wherein it is mentioned in clear and unequivocal terms that the incumbents who have sought voluntary retirement from the services of the insurance companies under the Scheme of 2004 shall not be eligible for the benefit arising out of this Scheme. The complete text of Sub Para (3) of Para 1 of the Notification dated 21st of December 2005 which was issued qua Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate staff, is reproduced as infra: (3) This scheme shall be applicable to all employees who were in whole time service in Supervisory, Clerical and Sub-ordinate Staff cadres of the Corporation or Company as on, or after, the 1st day of August, 2002. Provided that the employees whose resignations had been accepted or whose services had been terminated during the period from the 1st day of August 2002 and the date of publication of this Scheme, shall not be eligible for the arrears on account of revision under this Scheme. Provided that the employees whose resignations had been accepted or whose services had been terminated during the period from the 1st day of August 2002 and the date of publication of this Scheme, shall not be eligible for the arrears on account of revision under this Scheme. Provided further that the employees, who had sought Special Voluntary Retirement under,- (a) the General Insurance Employees' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (S.O.8(E) dated the 1st January, 2004) in the case of Company; or (b) the General Insurance Corporation of India Employees' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (S.O.454(E) dated the 1st April 2004), in the case of Corporation, and have been relieved thereunder prior to the date of this notify-cation, shall not be eligible for any benefit arising from this Scheme other than that provided for by sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph 5 of the General Insurance Employees' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004, or, the General Insurance Corporation of India Employees' Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004, as the case may be. 5. Questioning the sanctity and legality of this exclusion clause, petitioner Society has made scathing attack on the said clause in the pleadings on the anvil of equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and urged that this sort of classification is a glaring example of class legislation. The positive assertion of the Society in the writ petitions is that having made the revised pay scale Scheme effective from 1.8.2002, how and in what manner the members of the petitioner Society can be excluded from the benefits of the said Scheme. In the writ petitions, the petitioner Society has submitted that on the crucial date i.e. 1.8.2002 from which the revision of pay scales has been made effective, the members of the petitioner Society and the other employees, who continued to remain in service, are at par and form a group of individuals who are similarly circumstanced, then how and in what manner the members of the petitioner Society can be treated differently from the employees who have continued to remain in the services. Taking a dig at the Notification dated 21st of December 2005, whereby Scheme of revision of pay scales was introduced, the petitioner Society has averred in the writ petitions that the administrative instructions issued subsequently for implementation of the said Scheme for the purpose of ministerial employees and officers further makes the things complicated inasmuch as Para 16 (Ministerial employees) and Para 8.7 (Officers) of the administrative instructions issued on 27th of December 2005 has rendered the said Scheme unworkable. As per the petitioner Society, in Para 16 and 8.7 of the said instructions, it is provided that the employees who are governed by the General Insurance Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995, the employer’s contribution is to be credited to the respective pension fund. Thus, taking shelter of Para 16 and 8.7, it is submitted in the writ petitions that the members of the petitioner Society are entitled to avail the benefit of pension irrespective of the fact that whether they are voluntary retirees, voluntary retirees under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, or normal retirees on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner Society has submitted with full vehemence in the writ petitions that for the purpose of gratuity and leave encashment the administrative instructions has created an embargo that a voluntary retiree shall not be entitled for the arrears of enhanced gratuity and leave encashment to be computed w.e.f. 1.8.2002 pursuant to revision of pay scale under the Scheme of 2005. As per administrative instructions, the special voluntary retirees are only entitled for the revised pension by way of transferring the employer’s contribution to the respective pension fund in terms of Para 16 and 8.7 of the administrative instructions sans arrears of revised gratuity and leave encashment on account of revision of pay scale. The petitioner Society has also submitted in the writ petitions that there is no distinction between a normal retiree of the respondents and a retiree under the special voluntary retirement scheme and therefore the affirmative attempt by the respondents to form a separate class for special retirees vis-à-vis normal retirees suffers from the vice under inclusive classification. With a view to substantiate the claim, petitioner Society has also taken shelter of the doctrine of estoppel in the pleadings. 6. With a view to substantiate the claim, petitioner Society has also taken shelter of the doctrine of estoppel in the pleadings. 6. Again reiterating the afflictions of the members of the petitioner Society, it is averred in the writ petition that Sub-Para (xiv) of Para 8 of the Scheme of 2004 has enumerated that Special Voluntary Retiree shall not be entitled for certain concessions and it nowhere envisages that they shall not be entitled to get the benefit of gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension etc. under Para 6 of the Scheme. Sub-Para (xiv) of Para 8 is reproduced as under: (xiv) Save as provided in para 5(2) the benefits payable under this scheme shall be in full and final settlement of all claims of whatsoever nature, whether arising under the regulation or otherwise to the employee (or to the nominee in case of death). An employee who voluntarily retires under this scheme shall not have any claims against the company for re-employment or compensation or employment of any of his or her relative on compassionate grounds in the service of the company or for any other like benefits. 7. Invoking basic tenets of service jurisprudence, the petitioner Society has alleged in the writ petition that in view of the fact that revision of pay scales has been made effective from 1.8.2002 and on that day the members of the petitioner Society were in employment of the respondents, they cannot be deprived of the said benefit irrespective of the fact that they have sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004. Precisely, the pleadings of the petitioner Society in this behalf hovers around a fortuitous circumstance which has occasioned on account of promulgation of the Scheme of 2004 and in terms of the pleadings a fortuitous circumstance cannot be made as the basis to deprive the members of the petitioner Society from the legitimate pecuniary benefits. Precisely, the pleadings of the petitioner Society in this behalf hovers around a fortuitous circumstance which has occasioned on account of promulgation of the Scheme of 2004 and in terms of the pleadings a fortuitous circumstance cannot be made as the basis to deprive the members of the petitioner Society from the legitimate pecuniary benefits. Referring to the General Insurance Employees (Pension) Scheme 1995, which was made effective from 1.11.1993, as amended vide Notification dated 22nd of June 2000, the petitioner Society has alleged in the writ petitions that after the amendment dated 22nd of June 2000, Clause 3-A and 3-B were added in Appendix-V wherein it is clearly postulated that in case of any wage revision in future, the relief payable to an employee shall be determined by the Corporation corresponding to the index to which the scales will be linked. The complete text of Clause 3-A and B in the Pension Scheme of 1995 as revised on 22nd of June 2000, is reproduced as infra: (3A) In the case of employees who have retired or died on or after the 1st day of August, 1997, the dearness relief shall be payable for every rise or be recoverable for every fail, as the case may be, of every four points over 1740 points in the quarterly Average Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers in the series 1960-100. Such increase or decrease in dearness relief for every said four points shall be at the rate of 0.23 per cent of basic pension. (3B) In case of any wage revision in future the rate of dearness relief payable to an employee shall be determined by the Corporation corresponding to the index to which the scales will be linked. 8. As per the version of the petitioner Society, the Pension Scheme of 1995 is applicable vis-à-vis all the members of the petitioner Society and they are governed by the said Scheme, and therefore, in terms of the Scheme for employees who have retired on or after 1.8.1997, ipso facto they are entitled to get pension in pursuance of revision of pension in future irrespective of the mode of retirement. Thus, as per the averments in the writ petitions, the Notification dated 21st December 2005 has created a very anomalous situation so as to render the Scheme of 2004 and Scheme of 1995 otiose. Thus, as per the averments in the writ petitions, the Notification dated 21st December 2005 has created a very anomalous situation so as to render the Scheme of 2004 and Scheme of 1995 otiose. With these averments, the petitioner Society has urged that the Notification dated 21st of December 2005 be declared as null and void and the administrative instructions for its implementation issued subsequently be set at naught and the members of the petitioner association may be allowed benefit of the Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005 with consequential benefits of arrears of salary, revised pension, arrears of revised gratuity, leave encashment, commutation of pension etc. The petitioner Society has also sought a declaration that the members of the petitioner Society may be declared entitled for the benefit of revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.8.2002 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary, revised pension, arrears of gratuity, arrears of leave encashment etc with interest @ 18% per annum. In the alternative, petitioner Society has also sought annulment of Sub-Para (xiv) & (xv) of Para 8 of the Scheme of 2004. 9. On behalf of respondent insurance companies, separate replies to the writ petitions have been submitted with identical line of defence. By way of preliminary objection, it is pleaded in the reply that the members of the petitioner Society have sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004 which is contractual in nature and therefore the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the Scheme and no party can be allowed to stake its claim dehors the contractual Scheme. Citing the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bank of India vs. O.P. Swarnkar ( (2003) 2 SCC 721 ), it is urged in the reply that writ petition merit dismissal. It is also urged in the reply in the form of preliminary objection that the members of the petitioner Society can avail equally efficacious alternative remedy available under the Scheme as well as under law, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not appropriate forum for redressal of their grievances. In the reply, a preliminary objection is incorporated that the Scheme of 2004 was purely voluntary scheme and there was no compulsion for the employ to opt for voluntary retirement. In the reply, a preliminary objection is incorporated that the Scheme of 2004 was purely voluntary scheme and there was no compulsion for the employ to opt for voluntary retirement. By the said Scheme, an invitation of offer was floated and those who had opted for voluntary retirement were granted the requisite benefits flowing from the Scheme. After settlement of their claim, as per the Scheme, the employees cannot be permitted to re-agitate their claim for revision of pay scale of pre-retirement period and they are estopped from raising such a plea. The objection of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner Society was also urged in reply in the form of preliminary objection. 10. On merits, in the return, reference was made to Clause (ix) and (xiv) of Para 8 of the Scheme of 2004 and it is urged that both these sub-paras of Para 8 of the Scheme of 2004 puts an embargo for the claim of the members of the petitioner Society and as such the members of the petitioner Society are not entitled for any relief dehors the aforementioned clauses of Para 8 of the Scheme of 2004. Reiterating the preliminary objections, it is urged in the reply that the Scheme of 2004 was purely contractual and a party to a contract bound by the said Scheme, cannot be permitted to subsequently disown the contract for claiming additional benefits in the form of revision in the pay scales and other consequential benefits. Placing heavy reliance on Appendix ‘A’, proforma of application for voluntary retirement, submitted by the individual employee, it is pleaded in the reply that while submitting the said application, the employees agreed to the terms and conditions of the Scheme of 2004 and after full and final settlement in terms of the Scheme are not entitled for any benefit which has accrued subsequently. Laying specific stress on second proviso to Clause 3 of the Notification dated 21st December 2005 and administrative instructions dated 27th December 2005 for its implementation, it is submitted in the reply with full emphasis that on account of clear and unambiguous embargo for entitlement of the benefit of revision of pay scales for the special voluntary retirees under the Scheme of 2004, the claim laid by the petitioner Society in the present writ petitions is not at all tenable. As per the version of the respondent in the reply, the revision of pay scales came into offing in the year 2005 and before that all the members of the petitioner Society having ceased to be in employment after seeking retirement under the Scheme of 2004, cannot be permitted to stake their claim for the benefits flowing from the Scheme of 2005 as the contract of employment has come to an end before promulgation of the Revised Pay Scale Scheme 2005. It is also urged in the reply that the members of the petitioner Society having settled all their dues with the respondent insurance companies as per the Scheme of 2004, cannot be permitted to claim benefits of revision of pay scales because if such claims are entertained then the whole purpose of the Scheme of 2004 will be frustrated. Countering the averments made in the writ petition that the instructions issued for implementation of the revision of pay scales are unworkable and self-contradictory, it is urged in the reply that as per Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005 instructions were issued that for the employees who are governed by the Scheme of 1995, the employers contribution is to be credited to the respective pension fund. Hence, this benefit is extended to the retirees of the Scheme of 2004 by second amendment of 2005 Scheme framed under Section 17-A of the Act of 1972 by the Central Government. With this assertion, it is averred in the reply that the special retirees under the Scheme of 2004 became entitled by reason of statute to the extent it was indicated excluding the benefits like gratuity and leave encashment etc. Emphasizing the object of the Scheme of 2004 with clarity and precision, it is urged in the reply that the incumbents who opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004 were offered package as per the Scheme with the sole object of paying the said amount to bring about a complete jural relationship between the employer and the employee. Emphasizing the object of the Scheme of 2004 with clarity and precision, it is urged in the reply that the incumbents who opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004 were offered package as per the Scheme with the sole object of paying the said amount to bring about a complete jural relationship between the employer and the employee. Therefore, according to respondent insurance companies, after receiving the amount in terms of the Scheme, an employee ceases to be under the employment of the company and his all rights as an employee of the company has come to an end perpetually and as such an employee cannot be permitted to again agitate any kind of right which were anterior to his retirement from his erstwhile employer including the claim for enhancement of pay scale from an earlier period. 11. Subsequent to the reply, additional pleadings were submitted on behalf of the petitioner Society in the form of rejoinder dealing with the preliminary objections of the respondent companies. While joining issue on the preliminary objections and referring Para 3 of the Revised Pay Scales Scheme of 2005, the petitioner Society has urged that while submitting their option for voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004, the members of the petitioner Society never agreed to waive their right to get benefits of the revised pay scales. Moreover, the right to claim benefit of revision of pay scales is their legal/fundamental right, which cannot be waived off, nor battered away. In response to the other preliminary objections, the petitioner Society has submitted that the entire claim of the members of the petitioner Society is founded on Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore the objection of availability of efficacious alternate remedy is not tenable. Apart from the averments to counter the preliminary objections, in the rejoinder, the petitioner Society has reiterated the averments contained in the writ petitions. Justifying the claim for the benefit of revision in the pay scales, which were made effective from 1.8.2002, may it be that the Scheme was floated in 2005, the petitioner Society has averred in the rejoinder that claim of the revision in the pay scale is an ultimate right for which the members of the petitioner Society are well within its right to claim. 12. 12. The respondents yet again made an attempt to file reply to the rejoinder of the petitioner Society and reiterated the stand of reply with full emphasis. 13. Mr. Anil Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner Society, has urged that the exclusion clause in the Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005, whereby the members of the petitioner Society are sought to be deprived of benefits of the said Scheme despite its retrospective operation i.e. from 1.8.2002, is per-se arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and in clear negation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is apparently no rationale in depriving the employees/officers from reaping the fruits flowing from the said Scheme solely on the ground that they have sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004. In nut-shell, the submission of Mr. Bhandari is that if the Scheme has been given retrospective effect and on the crucial date, i.e. 1.8.2002, the members of the petitioner Society were in service, there is absolutely no justification in putting these employees in a separate class from the other employees/officers who have sought voluntary retirement otherwise and those who have retired on attaining the age of superannuation because according to the learned counsel for the petitioner such a classification is impermissible in law and is a glaring example of class legislation. Emphasizing on the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Bhandari has argued that Article 14 of the Constitution mandates that likes are to be treated alike and there should be no discrimination amongst similarly circumstanced individuals. 14. Adverting to the administrative instructions issued for implementation of the Scheme of revision of pay scales dated 21st December 2005, the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that Para 16 and 8.7 of these instructions have created yet another anomaly inasmuch as by virtue of Para 16 and 8.7, the members of the petitioner Society, who are governed by the Pension Scheme of 1995, are entitled for pension by way of crediting employers' contribution to the respective provident fund, but then for the other retiral benefits, which are gratuity and leave encashment, the members of the petitioner Society have been singled out for the purpose of revision of the said benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this further strengthens the case of the members of the petitioner Society that the respondents have acted mechanically without application of mind while issuing Notification dated 21st December 2005 and the administrative instructions dated 27th of December 2005. In substance, the submission of Mr. Anil Bhandari is that this sort of action by a wing of welfare State vis-a-vis retired employees is an apt example of fanciful and capricious exercise of powers in gross violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. Once again reiterating his contentions the learned counsel has urged that on the crucial date, i.e. 1.8.2002, the members of the petitioner Society were in employment and therefore they are well within their rights to be treated at par with the other employees, who have sought voluntary retirement otherwise than under the Scheme of 2004, or have retired from services on attaining age of superannuation. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with full emphasis at his command that under the Scheme of 2004, Clause (c) of sub-para (1) of Para 6 simply envisage that an employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004 shall not be entitled for additional notional benefits of five years added service as stipulated in Para 30(5) of the Pension Scheme 1995 to be added for the purpose of determining the quantum of pension and commutation of pension and there is no stipulation in the Scheme of 2004 that the employees/officers seeking voluntary retirement under the special scheme shall not be entitled for benefit of revision in the pay scale. Therefore, according to submission of Mr. Bhandari, in want of there being any embargo, denial of the benefits of revision in the pay scales for calculating retiral benefits of the employees, who have sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004, is highly unjust and improper, which cannot be sustained. Taking a dig at second proviso to sub-para (3) of Para 1 of the impugned Notification dated 21st December 2005, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhandari, would urge that the said proviso is inconsistent and contradictory to Clause 2 of the explanatory memorandum of the said Notification, and therefore, construing this proviso to the disadvantage of the members of the petitioner Society is irreconcilable. Bhandari, would urge that the said proviso is inconsistent and contradictory to Clause 2 of the explanatory memorandum of the said Notification, and therefore, construing this proviso to the disadvantage of the members of the petitioner Society is irreconcilable. Referring to the aforementioned clause of the explanatory memorandum of the Notification dated 21st December 2005, learned counsel Mr. Bhandari has argued that inconsistency in second proviso to Para 1(3) of the Notification dated 21st December 2005 vis-à-vis Clause 2 of the explanatory memorandum is so clear and unambiguous that it has become impossible to comprehend that the Notification dated 21st December 2005 was intended to deprive the employees from the benefit for which they are otherwise entitled by giving retrospective effect to the memorandum. 17. For substantiating his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bank of India & Anr. vs. Mohandas & Ors. ((2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 32). In the said verdict, the Apex Court while considering banks’ Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000, held that true construction of contract must depend upon import of the words used and not upon what party choose to say afterwards. The Court further elaborating that aspect has observed that subsequent conduct of the parties in the performance of the contract cannot affect the true effect of clear and unambiguous words used in the contract. Intention of the parties must be asserted from the language they have used, considered in the light of surrounding circumstances and object of the contract. Nature and purpose of the contract is an important guiding factor in ascertaining intention of the parties. The Apex Court, while construing the language employed in the Banks’ Voluntary Retirement Scheme, made following observations in Para 33 of the verdict: 33. What was, in respect of pension, the intention of the banks at the time of bringing out VRS 2000? Was it not made expressly clear therein that the employees seeking voluntary retirement will be eligible for pension as per the Pension Regulations? If the intention was not to give pension as provided in Regulation 29 and particularly sub-regulation (5) thereof, they could have said so in the scheme itself. After all much thought had gone into the formulation of VRS 2000 and it came to be framed after great deliberations. If the intention was not to give pension as provided in Regulation 29 and particularly sub-regulation (5) thereof, they could have said so in the scheme itself. After all much thought had gone into the formulation of VRS 2000 and it came to be framed after great deliberations. The only provision that could have been in mind while providing for pension as per the Pension Regulations was Regulation 29. Obviously, the employees, too, had the benefit of Regulation 29(5) in mind when they offered for voluntary retirement as admittedly Regulation 28 as was existing at that time, was not applicable at all. None of the regulations 30 to 34 was attracted. 18. The Apex Court further proceeded to hold that the argument of the banks that special benefit in the form of ex-gratia has been given to the incumbents who have opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme, are not entitled for any other benefit in addition to ex-gratia payment is per fallacious. In this behalf, the Apex Court has categorically held in Para 49 & 50 as infra: 49. It was vehemently contended on behalf of the banks that VRS 2000 was a self-contained Scheme and it provided for special benefits in the form of ex-gratia. It was submitted that ex-gratia was not available to the employees claiming voluntary retirement under the Pension Regulations and it was because of that, that the Scheme did not envisage granting of pension benefits under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, along with the payment of ex-gratia which was a substantial amount. 50. It is true that VRS 2000 is a complete package in itself and contractual in nature. However, in that package, it has been provided that the optees, in addition to exgratia payment, will also be eligible to other benefits inter alia pension under the Pension Regulations. The only provision in the Pension Regulations at the relevant time during the operation of VRS 2000 concerning voluntary retirement was Regulation 29 and sub-regulation (5) thereof provides for weightage of addition of five years to qualifying service for pension to those optees who had completed 20 years service. It, therefore, cannot be accepted that VRS 2000 did not envisage grant of pension benefits under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, to the optees of 20 years service along with payment of ex-gratia. 19. Mr. It, therefore, cannot be accepted that VRS 2000 did not envisage grant of pension benefits under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, to the optees of 20 years service along with payment of ex-gratia. 19. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered by the learned Single Judge in case of Ramesh Chand Patwa vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013(1) WLN 359 (Raj.)). In the said verdict, the learned Single Judge, while relying on the judgment of Apex Court in Mohandas’s case (supra), has made following observations in Para 10: 10. Pertinent to mention here that an effort is made by counsel for the respondents to distinguish the case in hand with the case of the Bank of India & Anr. vs. K. Mohandas & Ors. (supra) by submitting that in the instant case the petitioner has withdrawn all the benefits under the Scheme of 1976 read with the Amendment Scheme of 2003, therefore, as per clause 12 of the Amendment Scheme of 2003 he is not entitled to claim anything further after full and final settlement of all claims of whatsoever nature. This objection too is ill-founded as in the scheme applicable to the banks which was adjudicated by the Apex Court, too, was having such provision, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India & Anr. vs. K. Mohandas & Ors. (supra), this petition for writ deserves acceptance. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in case of UCO Bank & Ors. vs. Sanwarmal ((2004) SCC (L&S) 699), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that effect of voluntary retirement is that relationship of master and servant subsists for grant of retiral benefits. The Apex Court, while dilating on the said issue, has made following observations in Para 9 of the verdict: 9. We find merit in these appeals. The words "resignation" and "retirement" carry different meanings in common parlance. An employee can resign at any point of time, even on the second day of his appointment but in the case of retirement he retires only after attaining the age of superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. The words "resignation" and "retirement" carry different meanings in common parlance. An employee can resign at any point of time, even on the second day of his appointment but in the case of retirement he retires only after attaining the age of superannuation or in the case of voluntary retirement on completion of qualifying service. The effect of resignation and retirement to the extent that there is severance of employment (sic is the same) but in service jurisprudence both the expressions are understood differently. Under the Regulations, the expressions "resignation" and "retirement" have been employed for different purpose and carry different meanings. The pension scheme herein is based on actuarial calculation; it is a sell-financing scheme, which does not depend upon budgetary support and consequently it constitutes a complete code by itself. The scheme essentially covers retirees as the credit balance to their provident fund account is larger as compared to employees who resigned from service. Moreover, resignation brings about complete cessation of master and servant relationship whereas voluntary retirement maintains the relationship for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits, in view of the past service. Similarly, acceptance of resignation is dependent upon discretion of the employer whereas retirement is completion of service in terms of regulations/rules framed by the bank. Resignation can be tendered irrespective of the length of service whereas in the case of voluntary retirement, the employee has to complete qualifying service for retrial benefits. Further, there are different yardsticks and criteria for submitting resignation vis-a-vis voluntary retirement and acceptance thereof. Since the pension regulations disqualify an employee, who has resigned, from claiming pension, the respondent cannot claim membership of the fund. In our view, Regulation 22 provides for disqualification of employees who have resigned from service and for those who have been dismissed or removed from service. Hence, we do not find any merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent that Regulation 22 makes an arbitrary and unreasonable classification repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution by keeping out such class of employees. The view we have taken is supported by the judgment of this Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India & Anr. vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon. Before concluding we may state that Regulation 22 is not in the nature of penalty as alleged. The view we have taken is supported by the judgment of this Court in the case of Reserve Bank of India & Anr. vs. Cecil Dennis Solomon. Before concluding we may state that Regulation 22 is not in the nature of penalty as alleged. It only disentitles an employee who has resigned from service from becoming a member of the Fund. Such employees have received their retiral benefits earlier. The pension scheme, as stated above, only provides for a second retiral benefit. Hence there is no question of penalty being imposed on such employees as alleged. The pension scheme only provides for an avenue for investment to retirees. They are provided avenue to put in their savings and as a term or condition which is more in the nature of an eligibility criterion the scheme disentitles such category of employees as are out of it. 21. Per contra, Mr. UCS Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents, would urge that the claim of the members of the petitioner Society dehors the Scheme of 2004 is not permissible. Taking shelter of Clause (ix) and (xiv) of Para 8 of the Scheme of 2004, under the caption “General Conditions”, Mr. Singhvi has urged that if these two clauses are harmoniously construed, then it will ipso facto reveal that by virtue of clear and unambiguous language employed in these two clauses, the claim of the members of the petitioner Society is not at all tenable. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the aforementioned two clauses of Para 8 of the Scheme of 2004 puts an embargo for the claim of the employees/officers, who are members of the petitioner Society and as such the petitioner Society is liable to be non-suited in its pursuit in the present litigation. 22. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to Appendix ‘A’, proforma of application for voluntary retirement, under the Scheme of 2004, contends that while submitting his option for voluntary retirement, the incumbent employee/officer has agreed to be abide by the terms and conditions of the Scheme, cannot be permitted to resile from his own commitment and the members of the petitioner Society are thus estopped from claiming any other benefit after full and final settlement made by the companies as per the Scheme. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that after voluntary retirement jural relationship between the members of the petitioner society and the respondents have extinguished and therefore their claim is not legally sustainable. The learned counsel for the respondents has also persisted with his submissions in the form of preliminary objections that writ petitions have been filed belatedly and the members of the petitioner Society are well within their rights to avail alternative remedy as per Para 9 of the Scheme of 2004 and solely on the ground of delay and availability of alternative remedy, the petitioner Society is liable to be non-suited. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, Para 9 of the Scheme of 2004 envisages a clear stipulation for reference to the Central Govt. in certain contingencies. Para 9 of the Scheme is as under: 9. Reference to the Central Government.- If any doubt or difficulty arises in giving effect to any of the provisions of this scheme, it shall be referred to the Central Government for its decision and the same shall be binding. 23. Elaborating his submissions with reference to Para 9 of the Scheme, learned counsel for the respondents would urge that the appropriate remedy for the members of the petitioner Society is reference to the Central Government and without exhausting the said remedy, writ petition is not at all maintainable. 24. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the materials on record. 25. Before proceeding to adjudicate the controversy on merits at the threshold it is desirable to deal with preliminary objections raised on behalf of respondents. The objection of the respondents about estoppel is per-se not tenable because the claim laid by the members of the petitioner Society in the present petitions is in consonance and in conformity with the Scheme of 2004. There is apparently no material placed on record to show that the members of the petitioner Society have abandoned their right to claim the benefits of revision in the pay scales which is to be made effective from a date anterior to their retirement. The objection of the respondents about delay and laches is per-se ornamental inasmuch as cause of action has accrued to members of the petitioner Society in December 2005 and the petitions have been laid without any delay in the year 2006 itself. The objection of the respondents about delay and laches is per-se ornamental inasmuch as cause of action has accrued to members of the petitioner Society in December 2005 and the petitions have been laid without any delay in the year 2006 itself. The objection of the respondents, on which the learned counsel has laid great emphasis, is availability of alternative efficacious remedy. For substantiating the same, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Para 9 of the Scheme of 2004, wherein a reference can be made to Central Government if any doubt or difficulty is arises in giving effect to any of the provisions of the Scheme. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents in this behalf appears to be quite attractive but from the language employed in Para 9 of the Scheme of 2004, any prudent man can infer that neither it is a statutory remedy, nor it can be categorized as an efficacious remedy for redressal of grievances of the members of the petitioner Society. Analyzing the tribulations of the members of the petitioner Society in totality, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case, sub-para (ix) and sub-para (xiv) of Para 8 of the Scheme of 2004 cannot come to the rescue of the respondents so as to disentitle the members of the petitioner Society from the desired reliefs. Thus, the preliminary objections are hereby overrueld. 26. The pivotal question, which is subject matter of judicial review in the matter, is the classification of retired employees/officers of the insurance companies in different classes solely on the basis of different ways of their retirement/voluntary retirement. If the afflictions of the members of the petitioner Society are examined, then it will ipso facto reveal that the Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005 and the instructions issued subsequently for its implementation are intended to extend the benefit of Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005 vis-a-vis the employees/officers who have sought voluntary retirement from the services otherwise than under the Scheme of 2004 and those who have retired on account of attaining the age of superannuation, and not to the members of the petitioner Society, who have sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004. The genesis of this lis is apparently the fact that the Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005 is made retrospective i.e. from 1.8.2002, a crucial date when the members of the petitioner Society were in employment. On giving my thoughtful consideration to this sort of classification and for adjudging its validity on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apparently there remained no shadow of doubt that this classification is bad in law and is a glaring example of class legislation. The twin tests for adjudging validity of a classification are (i) classification must be based on intelligible differentia, and (2) it must have some nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In the background of these twin tests and taking into account the peculiar facts of this case that the Notification dated 21st December 2005 was given retrospective effect classifying the special retirees under the Scheme of 2004 in a different class is a clear case of classification dehors the law and it falls short of these twin tests. It appears that while issuing Notification dated 21st December 2005 and the administrative instructions for its implementation, the authorities were unmindful of this fact that the Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005 has been made effective from a retrospective date i.e. 1.8.2002. Thus, in my view, depriving the members of the petitioner Society from the revised retiral benefits as a consequence of promulgation of the Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005 is per-se arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. The fallacy of the decision of the respondents is also clearly apparent from Clause 2 of the explanatory memorandum appended with the Notification dated 21st December 2005 wherein it is clearly envisaged that no employee of the corporation or companies are likely to be affected adversely by the notification being given retrospective effect. On harmonious construction of the aforesaid clause, there remains no shadow of doubt that the notification never intended to deprive the employees/officers from their legitimate rights by implementing the same with retrospective effect. 27. On harmonious construction of the aforesaid clause, there remains no shadow of doubt that the notification never intended to deprive the employees/officers from their legitimate rights by implementing the same with retrospective effect. 27. One more redeeming feature of this case is that while issuing administrative instructions for implementation of the Revised Pay Scale Scheme of 2005, in terms of Para 16 and 8.7, the members of the petitioner Society, who have sought retirement under the Scheme of 2004, have been granted the benefit of the revision of pay scale but in the matter of revision of gratuity and leave encashment, they are sought to be treated differently from the other retired employees for no valid reason. There is apparently no rationale behind such a decision. In want of any concrete material at the behest of the respondents to justify this sort of classification, the irresistible conclusion of this Court is that deprivation of the members of the petitioner Society from the benefits of revised gratuity and revised payment of leave encashment is per-se unsound decision, which is not based on valid considerations. My this view is also fortified from the fact that denial of the retiral benefits to the members of the petitioner Society as a consequence of revision of the pay scales is never intended by the respondents while floating the Scheme of 2004. In the Scheme of 2004, in Para 6 under the caption “other benefits”, in clause (c) of sub-para (1) of Para 6, it was envisaged that the employee shall not be entitled for additional notional benefits of five years of added service as is stipulated in Para 30 of the said Pension Scheme of 1995 for the purpose of determining the quantum of pension and commutation of pension. As such, the terms of the contract were clear and unambiguous and in such circumstances depriving the members of the petitioner Society from the revised retiral benefits as a consequence of revision of pay scales from a retrospective date, when they were in employment, is ex-facie contrary to the terms of the contract incorporated in the Scheme of 2004. In these circumstances, the ratio decidendi of the Apex Court in Mohandas's case (supra) clinches the issue in favour of the members of the petitioner Society and the action of the respondents cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, the ratio decidendi of the Apex Court in Mohandas's case (supra) clinches the issue in favour of the members of the petitioner Society and the action of the respondents cannot be sustained. It is trite that a fortuitous circumstance cannot be made as the basis to deprive an individual from his legitimate rights for which he is legally entitled. This Court in Ramesh Chand Patwa's case (supra), while relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Mohandas's case (supra), has reiterated the same principle and is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There cannot be two opinion about the fact that the words “resignation” and “retirement” are having different connotations. Resignation from the employment entails forfeiture of past services, whereas retirement for all practical purposes subsists the relationship of master and servant for grant of retiral benefits. That being so, retired employee cannot be treated at par with an employee who has resigned from the services. 28. On objective assessment of the matter in the light of the factual background of the case and the legal position as emerges out from the decision referred to supra, both these petitions deserve acceptance. 29. Resultantly, both these petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the benefits of revision of pay scale to the members of the petitioner Society notionally w.e.f. 1.8.2002 and corresponding benefit of revised pension. The respondents are further directed to revise the benefit of gratuity, leave encashment and commutation of pension by extending benefit of the revised pay scale from 1.8.2002 to all members of the petitioner Society by way of payment of arrears of all these benefits. The requisite exercise in this behalf be undertaken by the respondents within three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs.