JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The sole respondent herein has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil), W.P.(C) No.16175 of 2014 before this Court with the following prayers: “(a) Call for the records and filed leading to Exhibit P4 from the respondents and quash Exhibit P4 by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; (b) Declare that petitioner's service of 19 years 6 months and 28 days in the 1st respondent-bank is liable to be treated and reckoned as 20 years of service, for the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits under Exhibit P1 Pension regulations and that petitioner is accordingly entitled to pensionary benefits under Exhibit P1 Pension Regulations: (c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to reckon the petitioner to have completed 20 years of service qualifying for pension under Regulation 29 of Exhibit P1 Pension Regulations and to accordingly disburse and pay to the petitioner, all pensionary benefits in terms of Exhibit P1 Pension Regulations for the period from 1.2.2014 onwards, alongwith arrears and with interest thereunder at the rate of 12% per annum from 1.2.2014 until date of payment; and (d) Grant such other and further reliefs as are deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this proceedings;” 2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned judgment on 25.10.2021 finally disposing of the instant W.P.(C) No.16175 of 2014, with the specific finding that the writ petitioner therein is entitled to lawfully secure the voluntary retirement pension in terms of Regulation 29 of Ext.P1 Regulations, in as much as his part period of service of 6 months and 27 days could be reckoned as one year in terms of Regulation 18 thereof and hence, if the said period is added on along with his 19 years of service, he would complete the requisite minimum qualifying service of 20 years in terms of Regulation 28(1) and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment has set aside and quashed Ext.P4 order dated 20.06.2014 issued by R3 in the W.P.(C) rejecting the claim for the said pension and has issued a direction that the pension in that regard shall be paid to the writ petitioner within two months, etc. It is this verdict of the learned Single Judge in the above W.P.(C) that is under challenge at the instance of the respondents in the W.P.(C) (the bank management), in the present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act. 3. Heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of Travancore appearing for the appellants in the W.A./respondents in the W.P(C) and Sri.Ashok B. Shenoy, learned Advocate instructed and assisted by Sri.P.S.Gireesh, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the W.A./writ petitioner. 4. We have heard both sides in extenso and have considered the pleadings in the petition records and also gone through the Regulations governing the field. We have also perused through the various judgments relied on by both sides. 5. It will be pertinent to refer to the factual aspects in this case. The sole respondent herein/writ petitioner (referred herein for short as “the writ petitioner”) had joined the service of the appellant State Bank of Travancore on 04.07.1994 in the post of Cashier cum Clerk and he had secured promotions also thereafter. At the relevant time, he made the request for voluntary retirement. He had a total spell of service of 19 years, 6 months and 28 days of service. At the relevant time, he made the request for voluntary retirement. He had a total spell of service of 19 years, 6 months and 28 days of service. As is discernible from Ext.P2, the writ petitioner had submitted application before the appellant Bank seeking permission for voluntary retirement from service in terms of Regulation 29 of Ext.P1 Regulations. The said request of the petitioner was granted as per letter No.AGM II/K/107 dated 05.12.2013 issued by the competent authority of the appellant bank as is admitted in para 1 of Ext.P2 and thus permission was granted to the writ petitioner for securing voluntary retirement from the service of the Bank. These aspects are discernible from Ext.P2 dated 31.01.2014 issued by the appellant Bank, wherein it is also stated that in view of the permission granted to the writ petitioner for voluntary retirement from service, he stands relieved from his duties, with effect from 31.01.2014. It is common ground that the writ petitioner was relieved from service of the appellant bank. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted the formal application for securing and quantifying the pensionary benefits in terms of Regulation 29, as per Ext.P3 application dated 06.03.2014. However, the said application as per Ext.P3 stood rejected as per Ext.P4 order dated 20.06.2014 issued by the competent authority of the appellant bank stating that the head office of the bank vide their letter dated 27.05.2014 has already instructed that the voluntary retirement benefits cannot be granted to the writ petitioner since he does not have the requisite 20 years of service as stipulated in Regulation 29 of Ext.P1 Regulations. It is this order at Ext.P4 that was under challenge in the instant writ petition. 6. It is common ground that the writ petitioner has a total length of service of 19 years 6 months and 28 days prior to his application for permission to secure voluntary retirement, as referred to in Ext.P2. It may be pertinent to refer to some of the crucial provisions in Ext.P1 Regulations which govern the field. The crucial provisions of Ext.P1 Regulations are extracted below. Regulation 2 deals with the definition clauses. Regulation 2(w) defines “qualifying service” as “2. It may be pertinent to refer to some of the crucial provisions in Ext.P1 Regulations which govern the field. The crucial provisions of Ext.P1 Regulations are extracted below. Regulation 2 deals with the definition clauses. Regulation 2(w) defines “qualifying service” as “2. Definitions: In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires:- xxxx xxxx xxxx (w) “qualifying service” means the service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pension under these regulations” Chapter IV of Ext.P1 Regulations deals with “qualifying service” and Regulation 18 deals with the “broken period of service of less than one year”, which reads as follows: “Regulation 18. Broken period of service of less than one year-If the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored.” Regulation 29 deals with “pension of voluntary retirement”, and the same provides as follows: “Regulation 29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement- (1) On or after the 1st day of November, 1993, at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the competent authority retire from service. Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year. Provided further that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement: Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with clause (1) of regulation 2. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. (3) (a) An employee referred to in sub-regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefore; (b) On receipt of a request under clause(a), the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-regulation(2), consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months. (4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this regulation and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority. Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. (5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. (6) The pension of an employee retiring under this regulation shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d) of regulation 2 of these regulations and the increase, not exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension.” (emphasis supplied) Certain other provisions of Ext.P1 Regulations may also be pertinent and those provisions are also extracted below for easy reference. Regulation 2(n) defines “employee” as follows: “Regulation 2(n) “employee” means any person employed in the service of the Bank on full time work on permanent basis or on part-time work on permanent basis on scale wages and who opts and is governed by these regulations, but does not include a person employed either on contract basis or daily wage basis or on consolidated wages”. Regulation 22 which also inter alia deals with interruption in service consequent to certain disqualification and certain exceptions thereto may also be pertinent. Regulation 22 reads as follows: “Regulation 22. Event of disqualification-(1) Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the Bank including that of an employee who is deemed to have voluntarily retired from the Bank's service in terms of the provisions for voluntary cessation of employment contained in Bipartite Settlement shall entail forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits; (2) An interruption in the service of a Bank employee entails forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases, namely:- (a) authorised leave of absence; (b) suspension, where it is immediately followed by reinstatement, whether in the same or a different post, or where the bank employee dies or is permitted to retire or is retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement while under suspension; (c) transfer to non-qualifying service in an establishment under the control of the Government or Bank if such transfer has been ordered by a competent authority in the public interest; (d) joining time while on transfer from one post to another. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-regulation (2), the competent authority may, by order, commute retrospectively the periods of absence without leave as extraordinary leave. (4) (a) In the absence of a specific indication to the contrary in the service record, an interruption between two spells of service rendered by an employee shall be treated as automatically condoned and the pre-interruption service treated as qualifying service; (b) Nothing in clause (a) shall apply to interruption caused by resignation, dismissal or removal from service or for participation in a strike: Provided that before making an entry in the service record of the Bank employee regarding forfeiture of past service because of his participation in strike, an opportunity of representation may be given to such bank employees.” (emphasis supplied) 7. At the outset, it has to be noted that consequent to the petitioner attaining 19 years 6 months and 28 days of service, he had submitted the requisite application for permission for voluntary retirement from the service of the appellant bank and the same has been unconditionally allowed as per the proceedings dated 05.12.2013 by the competent authority of the appellant bank, as can be seen from para No.1 of Ext.P2 and consequently, the writ petitioner has been granted permission for voluntary retirement from service and he was directed by none other than the appellant bank to be relieved of his duties from the service of the bank with effect from 31.01.2014. The writ petitioner thus legally stood relieved from the service of the appellant bank consequent to the conscious decision by the appellant bank to grant voluntary retirement to the petitioner. The procedure stipulates that yet another formal application will have to be submitted by such an incumbent for claiming and quantifying the actual pensionary benefits in terms of Regulation 29 and such application in terms of Ext.P3 was made by the writ petitioner on 06.03.2014. It is this consequential and latter request at Ext.P3 dated 06.03.2014 that has been rejected by the appellant bank, as per the decision rendered by the head office of the appellant bank on 27.05.2014 and communicated to the writ petitioner as per Ext.P4 dated 20.06.2014. So, at the outset, it has been noted that the basic decision taken by the appellant Bank, granting voluntary retirement to the petitioner and even ordering that the appellant would stand relieved from the service of the bank as referred to in para No.1 of Ext.P2 has never been revoked or recalled or altered by the appellant bank in the manner known to law. The writ petitioner made the request for formal permission in terms of the Regulations, the request was considered by the appellant bank and it was consciously allowed in favour of the writ petitioner and it was even ordered that the petitioner stands relieved from the service of the bank, appellants thus altered its position based on the specific action of the appellant bank. So the case is not as if a promise made by the appellant bank has been later breached by them. So the case is not as if a promise made by the appellant bank has been later breached by them. On the other hand, the request of the petitioner was considered, acted upon and allowed and he was ordered to be relieved from the service of the appellant bank, and it is only his formal application for grant and quantification of the pensionary benefits in terms of Ext.P3, that is rejected by the appellant bank on 27.05.2014. Hence, we are of the firm view that the abovesaid action of the appellant bank, in rejecting the consequential request without even in any manner altering the basic decision made by them as referred to in Ext.P2, is absolutely illegal, ultra vires and unfair. If at all the appellant bank had any case, at least at the time of rendering the decision on 27.05.2014 as referred to in Ext.P4, that their earlier decision to grant voluntary retirement to the petitioner as referred to in Ext.P2 was in any manner irregular or against the provisions of the Rules, etc. then, reasonableness and fairness demanded that the petitioner could have been put to notice and after hearing the petitioner, the appellant bank should have taken a decision whether the basic decision is to be altered in the manner known to law and whether the Rules also permit that and that in all fairness the appellant should have reinstated the writ petitioner in service and then directed him to continue in service for the limited remaining length of service, so that reckoning the said balance service, along with his 19 years 6 months and 28 days service, would have reached the level of 20 years qualifying service. On the other hand, without resorting to such steps, the appellant bank has taken a decision to allow the petitioner to voluntarily retire from service and has even relieved him from service and then rejecting his claim for pension in terms of Ext.P4. Such an approach is to say the least, not only illegal, but also patently unreasonable and arbitrary. On the other hand, without resorting to such steps, the appellant bank has taken a decision to allow the petitioner to voluntarily retire from service and has even relieved him from service and then rejecting his claim for pension in terms of Ext.P4. Such an approach is to say the least, not only illegal, but also patently unreasonable and arbitrary. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of the Apex Court since the last 3 decades or so that a public sector employer is obliged in law, to be a model employer and such an action on the part of the appellant bank which is a public sector bank fully owned by the Government of India cannot satisfy the minimum level of fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasonableness enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. If the appellant Bank had at least directed the reinstatement of the petitioner in service, if at all the appellant bank’s contention was otherwise valid regarding lack of qualifying service and inapplicability of Regulation 18, etc., and such a decision shall be taken immediately after the decision referred to in Exts.P2 & P3, then the things could have been set right at the earliest point of time. Whereas, at this point of time, it is really impossible to put the clock back. Therefore, such an unfair and unreasonable action on the part of the appellant bank cannot be countenanced by a writ court and the position in that regard is categorically declared by us. 8. However, we also proceed to deal with the merits of the case. As indicated herein above, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner has 19 years 6 months and 28 days of service at the time he was granted permission to voluntarily retire from service. Regulation 29(1) stipulates that the employee concerned should have completed 20 years of qualifying service at the relevant time for securing the benefit of pension on voluntary retirement. Regulation 2(w) defines “qualifying service” to mean the service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pension under the above Regulations. Regulation 29(1) stipulates that the employee concerned should have completed 20 years of qualifying service at the relevant time for securing the benefit of pension on voluntary retirement. Regulation 2(w) defines “qualifying service” to mean the service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pension under the above Regulations. However, very crucially, Regulation 18 dealing with broken period of service of less than one year, mandates that if the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service of less than one year, then if such broken period is more than 6 months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is 6 months or less, it shall be ignored. 9. This Court in Ext.P5 judgment dated 27.08.2009 in W.P.(C) No.21045 of 2006 has considered almost identical or similar issues in relation to the very same Regulations in the very same appellant bank herein. Therein after eschewing of the leave period, the incumbent had only 19 years 11 months and 11 days. This Court, after construing the provisions contained in the Regulations as per Ext.P1 herein, more particularly the provisions contained in Regulation 29(1) and Regulation 18, held that the abovesaid period of 11 months and 11 days (out of the total spell of 19 years 11 months and 11 days of service of the petitioner therein), would be treated as broken service within the meaning of Regulation 18 above and since the said period of 11 months and 11 days of service is less than one year, and more than 6 months, the said period is to be treated as one year, in view of the mandate contained in Regulation 18 above. Hence, this Court held that adding on the said period of one year as above along with the undisputed 19 years of service, the petitioner therein has 20 years of service and hence he has the requisite minimum qualifying service of 20 years in terms of Regulation 29(1) of the abovesaid Regulations. Hence, the claim for voluntary retirement pension of a similarly situated employee of the very same bank has been allowed by this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 27.08.2009 in W.P.(C) No.21045 of 2006. Hence, the claim for voluntary retirement pension of a similarly situated employee of the very same bank has been allowed by this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 27.08.2009 in W.P.(C) No.21045 of 2006. We are told by both sides that no Writ Appeal has been preferred as against Ext.P5 judgment and Ext.P5 judgment has been complied with by the very same appellant bank in the case of the employee covered therein. 10. Almost identical provisions are contained in the Regulations of the State Bank of Patiala, which, like the present State Bank of Travancore, is also a subsidiary of the State Bank of India. Identical provisions are contained in Regulations 18 & 29(1) thereof as well. The applicability of those Regulations of the State Bank of Patiala was considered by the Apex court in the case in State Bank of Patiala v. Pritam Singh Bedi and Others [ (2014) 13 SCC 474 ]. All the employees therein had more than 19 years and 6 months of service. The contention was taken by the appellant bank therein, the State Bank of Patiala, that the minimum qualifying service required in terms of Regulation 29(1) thereof was 20 years to secure the claimed pension and the broken period of service referred to in Regulation 18 therein (which is pari materia to the present Regulations) cannot be applied in the facts and circumstances in as much as what is involved is broken service with interruption and not an unbroken and uninterrupted service as in that case, wherein the employees had altogether continuous service of about more than 19 years and 6 months but, less than 20 years. The Apex Court after considering the matter has categorically declared that in such a case Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations will certainly apply and since the said period of 6 months and more but less than one year would be treated as one year by virtue of the mandate contained in Regulation 18 thereof and that the said one year period so arrived at is to be added on along with 19 years and hence, the employees therein/respondents therein will have to be treated as having the minimum qualifying service of 20 years in terms of Regulation 29(1) thereof. 11. 11. Similar situation was also considered by the Apex Court in a previous decision in the case in Indian Bank v. N.Venkatramani [ (2007) 10 SCC 609 ]. Therein the Regulations provided that the employee should have 15 years of qualifying service for getting the pension claimed in that case. An identical provision was contained in the Regulations of the said bank as in Regulation 18 thereof. The employee therein had altogether a length of the service of 14 years 9 months and 17 days. The said 9 months and 17 days period out of the total 14 years 9 months and 17 days, was found by the Apex Court to be treated as one year going by the mandate contained in the provision in Regulation 18 thereof. Hence, it was found that the employee therein should be treated as having 15 years of service by adding on one year service, along with the 14 years of service as above. The reasons for the same have been granted by the Apex Court in para No.13 of N.Venkatramani's case supra [ (2007) 10 SCC 609 ] which read as follows: “13. It may be true that various provisions of the Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23 etc provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not controlled by any of the said provisions. It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It only provides for a rule of measurement. An employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was entitled to pension provided he has completed the specified period of service. How such a period of service would be computed is a matter which is governed by the statute. It is one thing to say that a statute provides for completion of fifteen years of minimum service, but if a provision provides for measurement of the period, the same cannot be lost sight of. Provision of the regulations which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be construed liberally.” It has to be noted that we are bound by the declaration of law made by the Apex Court in the aforecited decisions, which has been applied in the case of similar employees covered by Regulations of identical nature in a pari materia manner. Provision of the regulations which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be construed liberally.” It has to be noted that we are bound by the declaration of law made by the Apex Court in the aforecited decisions, which has been applied in the case of similar employees covered by Regulations of identical nature in a pari materia manner. That apart, the appellant bank has already suffered an adverse verdict in terms of Ext.P5 on the very same issue and the same has not been challenged and the said judgment has been complied with in the case of a similar employee. In the light of these aspects, we are of the firm view that the learned Single Judge in the instant case was fully right in holding that Regulation 18 would come to the rescue of the writ petitioner for ensuring that the qualifying service is to be treated as 20 years, within the meaning of Regulation 29(1) in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Sri.P. Ramakrishnan, learned Standing counsel for the appellant State Bank of Travancore has submitted that what is involved in Regulation 18 is the broken service which would involve interruption in services and not uninterrupted services as involved in the present case, and such unbroken and uninterrupted service cannot be at par with broken and interrupted service covered by Regulation 18. Further that Regulation 2(w) defines “qualifying service” as the service rendered while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pension under the above Regulations and that the word “otherwise” appearing in Regulation 2(w) should be read ejusdem generis vis-a-vis, the earlier limb of the Rule and that therefore, it is essential that the jural relationship of employer -employee should subsist not only in the case covered by the first limb of Regulation 2(w), but also in the second limb thereof which deals with “otherwise”. Seen from that perspective, it has to be noted that the period of service of the appellant after 19 years 6 months and 28 days, which is rounded of as 20 years, is not period during which there was any employer -employee relationship in as much as admittedly, after the expiry of 19 years 6 months and 28 days service, the employer -employee relationship had snapped. The exception thereto will arise only if the provisions contained in Regulation 18 are complied with and Regulation 18 would come into play only if what is involved is broken and interrupted service and at the of time of broken service, there will be employer employee relationship between the management and claimant concerned. 13. Further, Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant State Bank of Travancore has also placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case in United Bank of India v. Pijush Kanti Nandy and Others [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ], in aid of his contention that the word “qualifying service” appearing in Regulation 29(1) and Regulation 2(w), especially in its applicability to the words “or otherwise” appearing in Regulation 2(w) has to be read ejusdem generis so as to ensure that there is always employer -employee relationship between the management and the claimant throughout the entire period of service of at least 20 years, etc. Sri.Ashok.B.Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has made submissions strongly opposing those contentions. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the abovesaid rival pleas. We are afraid that the facts of the case dealt with in United Bank of India's case supra [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ] are in relation to an entirely different scenario, of the applicability of Regulation 29(5) thereof, which is also identical to the present Regulation 29(5). We will give detailed reasons for the same. 15. It has to be noted that it is the admitted position of the bank that Regulation 18 is in the statute book and that what is involved is broken and interrupted service, and if such broken and interrupted periods of services are counted and the same is less than one year but more than 6 months, then the same will have to be treated as one year. So, going by the case of the appellant bank, in a situation where the claimant has 19 years of uninterrupted service, and 6 months 1 day of broken and interrupted service, the same could be treated as 20 years going by the mandate contained in Regulation 18. So, going by the case of the appellant bank, in a situation where the claimant has 19 years of uninterrupted service, and 6 months 1 day of broken and interrupted service, the same could be treated as 20 years going by the mandate contained in Regulation 18. In the fact situation covered in the instant case and in Ext.P5 as well as in Pritam Singh Bedi's case supra [ (2014) 13 SCC 474 ], N.Venkatramani's case supra [ (2007) 10 SCC 609 ], etc., the last spell of service after 19 years/14 years as the case may be, appears to be an uninterrupted and unbroken service, which was less than one year but more than 6 months. There could be scenarios of broken service like in a case that the employee is retrenched from service, etc. and after retrenchment he is out of service for some time and then again taken back to service based on availability of work load, vacancy, etc. If in such a case, the broken period of service at different points of time could be added on as conceded by the appellant bank and if such broken service periods are less than one year, but more than 6 months, the same could be treated as one year. 16. After hearing both sides, we are of the firm view that the unbroken/uninterrupted spell of service covered by the instant case as well as the aforementioned other case laws, should be treated as standing on a better pedestal than a broken/interrupted service as a one conceded to by the bank. At any rate, both the uninterrupted and unbroken spells of service as in the instant cases should be treated at least at parity with the broken/interrupted service conceded to by the appellant bank. Moreover, very crucially, whether it is the broken and interrupted spells of service conceded by the appellant to attract Regulation 18 or the unbroken period as involved in the present case, the period after this broken or unbroken spell, but before the expiry of the 20 year limit, will be a period during which there is no actual employer-employee relationship between the Bank and the claimant. As an illustration, take the case of an instance where the incumbent has 2 broken spells of service, each of 3 months & 1 day, apart from completed service of 19 years. As an illustration, take the case of an instance where the incumbent has 2 broken spells of service, each of 3 months & 1 day, apart from completed service of 19 years. Then, going by the conceded case of the appellant, the abovesaid total broken period of 3 months & 1 day plus 3 months & 1 day, totalling to 6 months & 2 days, being more than 6 months, but less than 1 year, can be reckoned as 1 year going by Regulation 18 and adding on this 1 year to the 19 years would make it as 20 years for the purpose of Regulation 29(1), thus entitling the claimant for voluntary pension. In that case, admittedly the balance period of 5 months & 28 days (i.e., 6 months & 2 days deducted from 1 year) is one during which there is no employer-employee relationship between the Bank and the claimant. Now take the case, where the unbroken and uninterrupted period of service is 6 months & 2 days, apart from the completed service of 19 years. There also the balance period of 5 months & 28 days is one, where there is no employer-employee relationship. So in both instances, the balance period is on an equal footing as far as employer-employee relationship is concerned. But as categorically held by the Apex Court in the aforecited decision as in Indian Bank's case supra and United Bank's case supra, the abovesaid provision in Regulation 18 provides for a rule of measurement, where the said spell of service of 6 months or more but less than 1 year is to be measured and reckoned as 1 year for the limited purpose of reckoning 20 years qualifying service as per Regulation 29(1). Viewed from that perspective, the conclusions arrived at in the abovesaid case laws cannot be judiciously faulted in any view of the matter. We are endeavouring to examine those issues only in view of the contentions posed to us by the appellant bank. There is no necessity for us to get into those issues as this Court is bound by the law declared by the Apex Court in Pritam Singh Bedi's case supra [ (2014) 13 SCC 474 ], N.Venkatramani's case supra [(2007) (10) SCC 609], etc., and the dictum in those case laws would squarely apply to the facts of this case. There is no necessity for us to get into those issues as this Court is bound by the law declared by the Apex Court in Pritam Singh Bedi's case supra [ (2014) 13 SCC 474 ], N.Venkatramani's case supra [(2007) (10) SCC 609], etc., and the dictum in those case laws would squarely apply to the facts of this case. The said reasoning of ours is also justified taking into account the provision contained in Regulation 22(4)(a) of Ext.P1 Regulations. In that regard it may also be relevant to note that Sub-regulation (4)(a) of Regulation 22 concedes that, in the absence of an indication to the contrary in the service records, an interruption between two spells of service rendered by an employee shall be treated as automatically condoned and the pre-interruption service treated as qualifying service, etc. When such a liberal and lenient attitude is made by the Regulations in favour of such interrupted service, the said aspect would also fortify the view that we have taken, that the present categories of uninterrupted unbroken spells of service should be treated at par with such broken interrupted service at least for the limited purpose of getting the benefits of Regulation 18. 17. Further we note that the facts scenario dealt with by the Apex Court in United Bank of India's case (supra) [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ] were entirely different. The employee therein had only 17 years 10 months and 17 days of service, as can be seen from a reading of para No.7 thereof. Therein also, the minimum qualifying service stipulated for grant of voluntary retirement pension is 20 years. Going by the facts of that case, a provision identical to the present Regulation 18 regarding counting or reckoning of broken service was also provided in those Regulations. However, the crucial aspect of the matter is that only maximum one year could be added on by virtue of Regulation 18 therein and even if that one year is added along with the 17 years of the service of the said employee, he would have secured only 18 years of service which is far less than the threshold of 20 years of qualifying service. Presumably, in view of these aspects, the employee therein contended that the 5 years of service envisaged in Regulation 29(5) should be added on along with his 17 years 10 months and 17 days of service, in which case, his total length of service could be computed as more than 20 years and therefore, he is eligible and entitled for the grant of voluntary retirement pension. That was the plea set up by the employee therein. The Apex Court held that Regulation 29(5) would apply on an entirely different frame. It was held that only in a case where an employee has 20 years of service, as construed in Regulation 29(5), can the situation covered by Regulation 29(5) for adding on 5 years as envisaged therein would arise. It is in this context that the Apex Court held that the words “or otherwise” appearing in Regulation 2(w) will have to be understood in an ejusdem generis manner, so that the employer employee relationship is maintained all throughout, etc. The Apex Court categorically held that in a case where the employee concerned does not have the 20 years of qualifying service in terms of Regulation 29(1), there is no question of arising any claim under Regulation 29(5). For the sake of easy reference, Regulation 29(5) is given below (See para 14 of United Bank of India's case (supra) [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 , p.611]: “29. (5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation”. In the very same judgment in United Bank of India's case supra, the Apex Court has referred to the previous judgment rendered by the Apex Court in N.Venkatramani's case supra [ (2007) 10 SCC 609 ] and para 13 of N.Venkatramni's case supra has been referred to in para 23 of the United Bank of India's case supra [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ]. The Apex court has not in any manner overruled the ratio decidendi of the decision in N.Venkatramani's case supra [ (2007) 10 SCC 609 ] while rendering the decision in United Bank of India's case supra [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ]. The Apex court has not in any manner overruled the ratio decidendi of the decision in N.Venkatramani's case supra [ (2007) 10 SCC 609 ] while rendering the decision in United Bank of India's case supra [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ]. The Apex Court has considered the impact of N.Venkatramani's case supra in paras 23 and 24 of United Bank of India's case supra, [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ], which read as follows: “23. We may notice that this Court in Indian Bank v. N.Venkatramani held:(SCC p.612, para 13) “13. It may be true that various provisions of the Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23 etc. provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not controlled by any of the said provisions. It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It only provides for a rule of measurement. An employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was entitled to pension provided he has completed the specified period of service. How such a period of service would be computed is a matter which is governed by the statute. It is one thing to say that a statute provides for completion of fifteen years of minimum service, but if a provision provides for measurement of the period, the same cannot be lost sight of. Provision of the regulations which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be construed liberally.” 24. In N.Venkatramani, the question arose as to how the lack in period of service of less than one year shall be construed. This Court held that Regulation 18 was not controlled by Regulations 16,17,19,23 etc. as it provided for a rule of measurement. It is however, trite that even a beneficial legislation should not be extended to such an extent whereby it would take into within its fold a situation which was not contemplated under the statute.” In the above case, there is no claim or applicability of Regulation 18 regarding reckoning of broken service. The only contention put forward by the employee in the case in United Bank of India's case supra was that his period of 17 years and above should be added on along with the 5 years of service envisaged in Regulation 29(5) and that accordingly, he should be treated to have more than 20 years of qualifying service, etc. The said plea has been rejected by the Apex Court in United Bank of India's case supra. The said plea has been rejected by the Apex Court in United Bank of India's case supra. Hence, the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in United Bank of India's case supra [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ] has no application in the instant case or in the cases covered by the aforecited case laws. For these reasons, we are not in a position to accede to the abovesaid submissions and pleas made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant State Bank of Travancore. In other words, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the well considered verdict of the learned Single Judge. 18. Sri Ashok B. Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein/writ petitioner has also raised an additional contention that going by Clauses (a) and (b) of Regulation 32 of Ext.P1 Regulations, 10 years’ service is required for the pension contemplated therein and since the writ petitioner has admittedly served for more than 10 years, he has right under that provision, etc. Regulation 32 reads as follows: “Regulation 32. Premature Retirement Pension-Premature Retirement Pension may be granted to an employee who,- (a) has rendered minimum ten years of service, (b) retires from service on account of orders of the Bank to retire prematurely in the public interest or for any other reason specified in service regulations or settlement, if otherwise he was entitled to such pension on superannuation on that date.” In the light of the view that we have taken, there is no necessity for us to decide that issue. Hence, the said issue is left open to be raised and decided in appropriate cases. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand dismissed.