Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, J.: The petitioner was appointed as Conductor with the respondent-Corporation on 07.01.1983. The respondent-Corporation has adopted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide Annexure P-2, dated 23rd November, 2004. According to this communication, the voluntary retirement was made subject to receipt of funds from the State Government for ex-gratia payment under the Scheme. No requests for retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme in respect of those employees facing disciplinary proceedings was to be entertained. Petitioner submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement vide Annexure P-1, dated 7th January, 2005. Petitioner’s application was allowed on 31.07.2005. He has rendered 22 years 7 months and 24 days service with the respondent-Corporation. Petitioner submitted a representation that his five years’ service be counted for the purpose of pensionery/retiral benefits as per Rules 29 and 48-B of the Central Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1972 applicable to the employees of the Corporation. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner’s five years service has not been counted for the purpose of pensionery/retiral benefits as per Rule-48 B of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 2. Case of the respondent-Corporation, in a nut-shell, is that since the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement, he would not be entitled to get the benefit of five years’ service under Rule48-B of the Central Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 3. The question raised in this petition is no more res integra in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India and another Vs. K. Mohandas and others (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 313. Their Lordships have held as under:- “24. The principal question that falls for our determination is : whether the employees (having completed 20 years of service) of these banks (Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Union Bank of India and United Bank of India) who had opted for voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 are entitled to addition of five years of notional service in calculating the length of service for the purpose of the said Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations, 1995 ? 42. 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 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. 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. 48. It is true that validity and legality of Regulation 28 has not been put in issue. 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. 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 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. 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 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. 51. The whole idea in bringing out VRS 2000 was to right size workforce which the banks had not been able to achieve despite the fact that the statutory Regulations provided for voluntary retirement to the employees having completed 20 years service. It was for this reason that VRS 2000 was made more attractive. 51. The whole idea in bringing out VRS 2000 was to right size workforce which the banks had not been able to achieve despite the fact that the statutory Regulations provided for voluntary retirement to the employees having completed 20 years service. It was for this reason that VRS 2000 was made more attractive. VRS 2000, accordingly, was an attractive package for the employees to go in for as they were getting special benefits in the form of ex-gratia and in addition thereto, inter alia pension under the Pension Regulations which also provided for weightage of five years of qualifying service for the purposes of pension to the employees who service for the purposes of pension to the employees who had completed 20 years service.” Rule 48-B reads as under: “(1) The qualifying service as on the date of intended retirement of the Government servant retiring under Rule 48(1) (a) or Rule 48-A or Clause (k) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules or Clause (i) of Article 459 of the Civil Service Regulations, with or without permission shall be increased by the period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by the Government servant does not in any case exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. (2) The weightage of five years under sub-rule (1) shall not be admissible in cases of those Government servants who are prematurely retired by the Government in the public interest under Rule 48(1)(b) or FR 56(j).” 4. It is evident from the plain language employed in Rule 48-B that the qualifying service as on the date of intended retirement of the Government servant with or without permission shall be increased by the period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by the Government servant does not in any case exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner had worked for 22 years, 7 months and 24 days at the time of his seeking voluntary retirement on 31.07.2005. Rule 48-B would apply even if the petitioner has sought voluntary retirement. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner had worked for 22 years, 7 months and 24 days at the time of his seeking voluntary retirement on 31.07.2005. Rule 48-B would apply even if the petitioner has sought voluntary retirement. The voluntary retirement is a golden handshake and the purpose of the Scheme is to induce new blood by permitting the incumbents to seek voluntary retirement after putting in number of years service, as prescribed under the Scheme. The provisions governing the benefits of services of employees must be construed in a fair and reasonable manner, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited hereinabove. 6. The learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in N.K. Sharma Vs. BSES and ors., W.P. (C) No. 4806/2011, decided on 27th September, 2013, had an occasion to consider the applicability of Rule 48-B of the Central Civil services (Pension) Rules, 1972 qua the employees, who have sought voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Learned Single Judge has held as under: “5. Applying the provision of Rule 48-B and the ratio of the judgment in Pawan Vohra’s case (supra), both the petitioners will get benefit of additional five years of service and therefore, the qualifying service of each of the petitioners will be taken as 15 years plus five years which comes to a total of 20 years of service. 7. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule 13 shows that even officiating or temporary service period has to be added for determining qualifying service. 10. Learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1 further sought to argue that there is a difference between the eligibility and qualifying service. It is argued that first a person must become eligible by completing 20 years of service and only thereafter, qualifying service can be taken to determine the pension. I am unable to accept this argument which is without any substance whatsoever because eligibility and qualifying service are effectively the same because pension is paid as per qualifying service which is determined as per Rule 13. Nowhere in the pension rules, it is provided that eligibility must first take place by completing 20 years of service and thereafter the qualifying service will be determined for calculating pension. Nowhere in the pension rules, it is provided that eligibility must first take place by completing 20 years of service and thereafter the qualifying service will be determined for calculating pension. In fact, Rule 13 provides exactly the opposite and states that qualifying service is to be determined as per the said provision and the period of temporary service is added to determine the total qualifying service and which qualifying service will entitle grant of pension. Also, if I agree with the argument urged by learned senior counsel for respondent No. 1, the effect would be to wholly negate Rule 48-B, and as per which, a bonus period of five years is added to the period of service in order to determine the qualifying service. It only bears reiteration and repetition that pension is paid as per qualifying service, and that nothing can be added to Rule 13 and nothing can be subtracted from Rule 13 for deciding the qualifying service for determining the pension. 16. In view of the above, I find that the petitioners by virtue of Rule 48-B of the CCS Pension Rules will have benefit of additional five years of service as bonus period of service to be added to their 15 years of actual service that stood completed on 31.12.2003, and thus their total service period comes to 20 years. The petitioners, therefore, had qualifying service of 15 years plus 5 years i.e., 20 years.” 7. Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-3, whereby it is specifically provided that the benefit of addition of five years qualifying service as contained in Rules 29 and 48-B of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 shall not be applicable to the employees seeking retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The employees whether they retire by seeking voluntary retirement or retire according to the other provisions of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 constitute a homogeneous class. The homogeneous class cannot be divided by denying the benefit to a particular class, merely, on the ground that he/she has sought voluntary retirement for the purpose of addition of five years qualifying service. Rule-19 is not applicable in this case. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-3, dated 30th November, 2004 is quashed and set aside. The homogeneous class cannot be divided by denying the benefit to a particular class, merely, on the ground that he/she has sought voluntary retirement for the purpose of addition of five years qualifying service. Rule-19 is not applicable in this case. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-3, dated 30th November, 2004 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of five years qualifying service to the petitioner from the date of his retirement, i.e., 31.07.2005 and revise the pension from the due date and also to release other retiral benefits alongnwith interest @ 9% per annum from the due date till its realization. The miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. No costs.