JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner availed voluntary retirement from services of the respondent United India Insurance Company Limited under General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme of 1976") as amended under General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Amendment Scheme, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme of 2003"). As per the scheme aforesaid he was entitled for gratuity pension (including commutation of pension), leave encashment in addition to exgratia amount. 2. Suffice to mention here that in regular course provision for voluntary retirement from service of the respondent insurance company is prescribed under the General Insurance (Employees') Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme of 1995"). As per sub-clause (5) of clause 30 of the Scheme of 1995 the qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under clause 30 of the Scheme of 1995 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 33 years and it does not take him beyond the date of retirement. The respondent insurance company did not allow the benefit referred in sub-clause (5) of clause 30 referred above to the petitioner as he availed voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 1976 read with the amended Scheme of 2003. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the benefits given under the Scheme of 1976 read with the amended Scheme of 2003 are in addition to whatever rights and liabilities prescribed under the Pension Scheme of 1995, as such the respondents should have determined pension of the petitioner by extending his qualifying service by five years, as per sub-clause (5) of clause 30 of the Scheme concerned. 4. While opposing the claim made by the petitioner the argument advanced by counsel for the respondents is that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at threshold being belated and also on the count of nonjoinder of necessary parties. 5. According to counsel for the respondents Union of India is a party necessary to the proceedings as the Schemes of 1976 and 2003 are framed by the Government of India. 5. According to counsel for the respondents Union of India is a party necessary to the proceedings as the Schemes of 1976 and 2003 are framed by the Government of India. It is further submitted that benefit of sub-clause (5) of clause 30 of the Pension Scheme of 1995 cannot be extended to the petitioner as he did not avail voluntary retirement in this pension scheme. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to non-joinder of necessary party is absolutely non-consequential for the reason that the petitioner is not at all questioning any provision of the Scheme of 1976 or amendments introduced with it under the amendment Scheme of 2003. The petitioner as a matter of fact has availed voluntary retirement by banking upon the scheme aforesaid and he has availed benefit under the same. He as a matter of fact in this petition for writ is claiming benefits under the Pension Scheme of 1995 in addition to the Scheme of 1976 read with the amendment Scheme of 2003. 8. So far as the issue with regard to delay is concerned, that too is having no merit. The petitioner is desiring to have additional qualifying service that may enhance his pension. The petitioner as per his claim is receiving pension less than his entitlement, thus, is receiving injury regularly and, therefore, the cause sought to be agitated is a recurring one. 9. So far as merits of the case are concerned, suffice to mention that the same has already been adjudicated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Bank of India and Anr. v. R. Mohandas and Ors., reported in (2009)2 SCC (L and S) 32. In the case aforesaid Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the provisions para-materia to the Schemes in question and held as under:- "27. v. R. Mohandas and Ors., reported in (2009)2 SCC (L and S) 32. In the case aforesaid Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with the provisions para-materia to the Schemes in question and held as under:- "27. In view of the admitted position that VRS 2000 was a contractual scheme; that it was an invitation to offer containing a term that optee will also be eligible for pension as per Pension Regulations; that an application by an employee for voluntary retirement was a proposal or offer and that upon acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement made by the employee and a communication of acceptance to him, the concluded contract came into existence and the offers was relieved from the employment, for consideration of the question posed herein, the court need to examine the contract and the circumstances in which it was made in order to see whether or not from the nature of it, the 23 parties must have made their bargain on the footing that a particular thing or state of things would continue to exist. 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 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 the 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 Pension Regulations was Regulation 29. Obviously, the employees, too, had 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 26 applicable at all. None of the regulations 30 to 34 was attracted. 42. Obviously, the employees, too, had 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 26 applicable at all. None of the regulations 30 to 34 was attracted. 42. The contention was raised on behalf of the banks that if Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, is applied for the purposes of VRS 2000, the same would create an anomalous situation inasmuch as two different classes of employees for the purpose of granting pension would be created, namely, a class of employees who had completed 15 years of service but less than 20 years of service and this class would not be entitled to receive benefits under Regulation 29(5) while the employees who had completed 20 years service or more would be entitled to receive the benefit under Regulation 29(5). 43. It was submitted that by such construction a class within the class would be created which is impermissible. We do not agree. If a special benefit under Regulation 29(5) is available to the employees who had completed 20 years of service or more, by no stretch of imagination, can it be said that it is discriminatory to those employees who had completed 15 years of service but not completed 20 32 years. In view of the provision contained in Regulation 29 (5), if the optees who have not completed 20 years get excluded from the weightage of five years which has been given to optees who have completed 20 years of service or more, it is no discrimination. Such provision can neither be said to be arbitrary nor can be held to be violative of any constitutional or statutory provisions. The weightage of five years under Regulation 29(5) is applicable to the optees having service of 20 years or more. There is, thus, basis for additional benefit. Merely because the employees who have completed 15 years of service but not completed 20 years of service are not entitled to weightage of five years for qualifying service under Regulation 29(5), the employees who have completed 20 years of service or more cannot be denied such benefit. 44. On behalf of the banks, it was contended that Pension Regulations, 1995, are statutory in nature and these Regulations cannot be altered, amended or read down in view of any contract or a contractual scheme. 44. On behalf of the banks, it was contended that Pension Regulations, 1995, are statutory in nature and these Regulations cannot be altered, amended or read down in view of any contract or a contractual scheme. It was submitted that any contract (or contractual scheme), 33 contrary to a statutory law would be hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act and, therefore, it is the contract or the scheme which has to be modified, altered or read down to bring it in tune with the provisions of statutory Regulations and not the other way round. The contention does not impress us. 45. It is misplaced assumption that by reading Regulation 29(5) in the Scheme, the Pension Regulations would get altered or amended. Can it be said that statutory relationship of employee and employer brought to an end prematurely by contractual VRS 2000 amounted to alteration or amendment in the statutory Regulations. Surely, answer has to be in negative and that must answer this contention. 46. The precise effect of Pension Regulations, for the purposes of pension, having been made part of scheme, is that Pension Regulations, to the extent, these are applicable, must be read into the Scheme. It is pertinent to bear in mind that interpretation clause of VRS-2000 states that the words and expressions used in the scheme but not defined and defined in the Rules/Regulations shall have the same meaning respectively assigned to them under 34 Rules/Regulations. The Scheme does not define the expression 'retirement' or 'voluntary retirement'. We have, therefore, to fall back on the definition of 'retirement' given in Regulation 2(y) where under voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 is considered to be retirement. Regulation 29 uses the expression, 'voluntary retirement under these Regulations'. Obviously, for the purposes of the Scheme, it has to be understood to mean with necessary changes in points of details. Section 23 of the Contract Act has no application to the present fact situation. 47. It was submitted on behalf of the banks that amendment to Regulation 28 has neither been challenged nor the said Regulation has been declared ultra vires and, therefore, that provision cannot be rendered otiose by taking recourse to Regulations 29. 48. It is true that validity and legality of Regulation 28 has not been put in issue. 47. It was submitted on behalf of the banks that amendment to Regulation 28 has neither been challenged nor the said Regulation has been declared ultra vires and, therefore, that provision cannot be rendered otiose by taking recourse to Regulations 29. 48. It is true that validity and legality of Regulation 28 has not been put in issue. It was apparently not done because, according to the employees, amended Regulation 28 although made retrospective could not have affected the concluded contract. We have already indicated above as to how the 35 amendment in Regulation 28 in the year 2002 with effect from September 1, 2000 could not have applied to the optees under the Scheme who had completed service of 20 years. Lack of challenge to the Regulation 28 by the employees is, therefore, not very material. It is not correct to say that by taking recourse to Regulation 29, the amendment to Regulation 28 is rendered otiose. 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 Pension Regulations and it was because of that, that 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 ex-gratia payment, will also be eligible to other benefits inter alia pension under the Pension Regulations. The only 36 provision in the Pension Regulations at the relevant time during the operation of VRS 2000 concerning voluntary retirement was Regulation 29 and clause(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." 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 and Anr. 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 and Anr. v. K. Mohandas and 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India and Anr. v. K. Mohandas and Ors. (supra), this petition for writ deserves acceptance. 11. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to enforce sub-clause(5) of clause 30 of the Pension Scheme of 1995 qua the petitioner and further to release revised pension and commutation of pension accordingly. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive all arrears as a consequent to the entitlement declared above. The direction given is required to be executed within a period of three months from today.No order to costs.Petition Allowed. *******