JUDGMENT : J.B PARDIWALA, J. Since the issues raised in both the captioned writ applications are more or less the same, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The writ applicants before me joined the services of the Bank as ‘Armed Guard’ in the year 1987. They were appointed in the category of Ex-serviceman. It is the case of the writ applicants that the Bank introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2001 known as, ‘the Central Bank of India (Employees') Retirement Scheme, 2001’. 3. According to the said scheme, all those permanent employees, who had completed fifteen years of service in the Bank or had attained age of forty years, would be eligible to seek the voluntary retirement. 4. According to the writ applicants, since they were eligible to opt for the voluntary retirement and accordingly applied. The Bank accepted the applications and passed the orders of voluntary retirement. 5. After seeking volntary retirement, the writ applicants prayed that the they be given pension. Since the pension was declined, they had to come up with the two writ applications praying for the following: “10A. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and quash the set aside the decision in not paying to the petitioner Bank's contribution towards provident fund under the existing Rules/Regulations of the respondent Bank as he is not eligible for pension under the Central Bank of India Employee's Pension Regulations, 1995 and declared the same to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also violative of Central Bank of India (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the respondent Bank's contribution towards provident fund as per the existing Rules and Regulations of the respondent Bank with 12% p.a interest. B. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay forthwith to the petitioner the respondent Bank's contribution towards provident fund as per the existing Rules and Regulations of the respondent Bank with 12% p.a interest. B. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay forthwith to the petitioner the respondent Bank's contribution towards provident fund as per the existing Rules and Regulations of the respondent Bank with 12% p.a interest. C. Any other and further reliefs as deemed just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be granted, in the interest of justice.” 6. It appears from the materials on record that both the writ applicants at the time of their voluntary retirement, had not put in more than fifteen years of service. When they opted for pension while in service, they had put in about nine years of service. They were in the Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F). The date the writ applicants opted for pension, the amount towards the Contributory Provident Fund was transferred to the credit of the fund constituted under Regulation 5 of the Pension Regulations called ‘the Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Fund’. The pension is now being denied by the Bank on the ground that since the writ applicants opted for the voluntary retirement having attained the age of forty years, they would be governed by the Pension Regulations, but the Pension Regulations provide that the minimum service should be of fifteen years. Mr. Macwan, the learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that since the writ applicants had not put in the minimum fifteen years of service, they are not entitled to pension. 7. On behalf of the Bank, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed inter alia stating as under: “3 At the outset, I deny that the respondent Bank has violated or contravened mandates of Article-14 or 16 of the Constitution of India as alleged or otherwise. I also deny that the Bank has violated or breached any clause of Central Bank of India Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2001 (“CBIEVRS-2001” for short) or any regulation of Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (“Pension Regulations” for short). Hence, this Hon'ble Court may not like to entertain the present petition and may like to dismiss the same in limine. 4. Before, proceeding to deal with the merit of the subject matter of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may like to appreciate the circumstances leading to introduction of voluntary retirement scheme by the public sector banks of the Government of India. 4. Before, proceeding to deal with the merit of the subject matter of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may like to appreciate the circumstances leading to introduction of voluntary retirement scheme by the public sector banks of the Government of India. I submit that it was being felt since a long time particularly in the wake of globalisation and liberalisation of the economy that the Nationalised Banks were overstaffed as a result of which controlling and operation costs were increasing and the Banks were not able to meet the expected standards of efficiency due to excess staff. Further, after having opened banking industry to private players, the competition from the private sector Banks and technological upgradation in the working of Nationalised Banks compelled the Nationalised Banks to have a thorough re-assessment of the manpower planning and consequent overall rightsizing the number of employee by downsizing the same. Thus, with the clearance of Government of India, the Nationalised Banks adopted and implemented a voluntary retirement scheme which offered a handsome reward by way of ex-gratia payments to the employees seeking retirement under voluntary retirement scheme declared by the respondent Bank along with other public sector Banks. 5. I say and submit that being eligible, the petitioner herein submitted his application for voluntary retirement under CBIEVRS-2001 on 27/2/2001 which was accepted by the respondent Bank vide office order dated 22/03/2001 as per the provisions of CGBIEVRS-2001 and the petitioner was paid the benefits including ex-gratia amount as per his entitlement and as per the provisions of CBIEVRS-2001. I say and submit that as admitted by the petitioner in the memo of the petition he had opted for pension scheme on the pension scheme being introduced in the respondent Bank and therefore, he was governed by the Pension Regulations. In other words, on his opting for pension under pension scheme, he ceased to be a member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. 6. I say and submit that as per the provisions of CBIEVRS-2001 (Annexure-”A” to the petition) the petitioner in addition to the payment of amount of ex-gratia as provided in Clause-5, was eligible and entitled of other benefits as provided in Clause-6 on “other benefits” as under: “6. 6. I say and submit that as per the provisions of CBIEVRS-2001 (Annexure-”A” to the petition) the petitioner in addition to the payment of amount of ex-gratia as provided in Clause-5, was eligible and entitled of other benefits as provided in Clause-6 on “other benefits” as under: “6. OTHER BENEFITS: An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the scheme will be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia amount mentioned in clause 5 above of this scheme: i. Gratuity as per payment of Gratuity Act-1972 or Gratuity payable under the service Rules as the case may be, as per existing Rules; (ii.a) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per Central Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulation 1995 (in case of those who have opted for Pension and otherwise eligible for the same). OR (b) Bank's contribution towards PF as per existing rules (in respect of employees opted for PF) iii. Leave encashment as per existing rules.” I say and submit that the benefits as enumerated hereinabove for which the petitioner was eligible and entitled to namely gratuity and encashment of leave have been paid to the petitioner as per the rules of the respondent Bank in that regard. 7. I further say and submit that the petitioner could not be paid the benefit of Bank's contribution towards his PF as contended by him as the petitioner had opted for pension and therefore, the entire contribution of the Bank along with the interest accrued thereon in the trust of the Provident Fund came to be transferred to the credit of the Fund constituted under Regulation-5 of the Pension Regulations-called Central bank of India (Employees') Pension Fund. Regulation-3 of the Pension Regulations on “application” of the Pension Regulations inter alia, provides as under: “3. Application; These regulations shall apply to employees who, - (1)… …………. Regulation-3 of the Pension Regulations on “application” of the Pension Regulations inter alia, provides as under: “3. Application; These regulations shall apply to employees who, - (1)… …………. (2) …………… (3)a) are in the service of the Bank before the notified date and continue to be in the service of the Bank on or after the notified date; and (b) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund; and (c) authorize the trust of the Provident Fund of the Bank to transfer the entire contribution of the Bank along with the interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Fund constituted for the purpose under Regulations-5” In my humble submission, therefore, the petitioners does not remain entitled for Bank's contribution to P.F on his opting for pension under Pension Regulations. 8. I further say and submit that the petitioner could not be paid the benefit of pension as per the provisions of Pension Regulations as the petitioner was not eligible for pension for not having completed minimum period of 15 years of services in the respondent Bank. In this regard Regulation-28 of Pension Regulation provides as under: “28. Superannuation Pension:- Superannuation Pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired on his attaining the age of superannuation specified in the Service Regulations or Settlements. Provided that, pension shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire before attaining the age of superannuation but after having served for a minimum period of 15 years in terms of any scheme that may be framed for the purpose by the Bank's Board with the concurrence of the Government.” I say and submit that the CBIEVRS-2001 was a special scheme framed for the purpose of downsizing excess manpower by the Board of respondent Bank with concurrence of the Government. I further submitted that those employees who sought voluntary retirement under CBIEVBRS-2001 and whose applications were accepted by the bank and who had completed minimum period of 15 years of service were eligible for and entitled to receive the pension under Pension Regulations as per the aforesaid provisions. Since the petitioner had not completed minimum period of 15 years of service in respondent Bank, the petitioner was not eligible for and entitled to receive the pension under Pension Regulations. Since the petitioner had not completed minimum period of 15 years of service in respondent Bank, the petitioner was not eligible for and entitled to receive the pension under Pension Regulations. The petitioner was informed of the same vide letter dated 23/10/2001 of the respondent bank (Annexure-”C” to the memo of the petition). 9. In view of the matter as stated above, the petitioner is not eligible to: i. receive Bank's contribution of Provident Fund as the petitioner is not a member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, since he ceased to be a member of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme on his opting for Pension Regulations; ii. receive pension as per the pension regulations as the petitioner has not completed minimum period of 15 years of service as required under Regulation-28 of the Pension Regulations.” 8. Ms. Mohini Bhavsar, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants submits that her clients have lost everything while seeking voluntary retirement. Neither the amount towards the Contributory Provident Fund was paid nor the Bank is ready and willing to pay the pension. According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants, assuming for the moment that her clients are not entitled to pension since the conditions under the Pension Regulations are not fulfilled, then at least, the amount towards the Contributory Provident Fund should have been paid to her clients. 9. Mr. Macwan, the learned counsel appearing for the Bank made his stance very clear. According to him, both the writ applicants could not put in minimum fifteen years of service. After opting for pension, the entire contribution of amount of the Bank along with the interest accrued thereon in the Trust of the Provident Fund came to be transferred to the credit of the fund constituted under Regulation 5 of the Pension Regulations. In short, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Bank, the writ applicants should have been careful when they opted for pension. If they would not have opted for the voluntary retirement, then they would not have been governed by the Pension Regulations. Having opted for the voluntary retirement, the Pension Regulations were made automatically applicable. 10. In short, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Bank, the writ applicants should have been careful when they opted for pension. If they would not have opted for the voluntary retirement, then they would not have been governed by the Pension Regulations. Having opted for the voluntary retirement, the Pension Regulations were made automatically applicable. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the writ applicants are entitled to any of the relies as prayed for in these writ applications. 11. I am of the view that the writ applicants should not be deprived of both i.e the amount contributed towards the Contributory Provident Fund as well as the pension. When the writ applicants opted for voluntary retirement, it was the duty of the Bank to guide them accordingly, because the Bank knew very well that the writ applicants had not put in minimum fifteen years of service and having once opted for the voluntary retirement, the writ applicants would be automatically governed by the Pension Regulations. At this stage, the stance of the Bank appears to be little unreasonable. 12. In view of the above, the Bank is directed to reconsider the entire issue. Either the Bank may consider paying the requisite amount towards the Contributory Provident Fund or may take an appropriate decision as regards payment of pension. Let such decision be taken by the Bank within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The order should be in writing containing reasons. 13. With the above, both the writ applications are disposed of. Direct service is permitted.