JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The instant Letters Patent Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant-Associate Bank’s Retired Officers Association (in short as “Appellants) BRIEF FACTS: 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the entire case of the appellants hinges on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India & another Vs. K. Mohandas and others, (2009) 5 SCC 313 . 3. The appellants were the employees of the erstwhile State Bank of Saurashtra (for short, “SBS”). On 06.02.2001, the State Bank of Saurashtra introduced a SBS Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short, “SBSVRS”) for those employees, who had put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31.01.2001, against payment of ex gratia amount of 60 days’ salary (Pay + Stagnation Increments + Special Pay of Permanent Nature + D.A.) for each completed years of service. The said SBSVRS was introduced vide Circular dated 06.02.2001 signed by the General Manager Mr. I.P. Mishra. 4. The Scheme was made open from 19.02.2001 to 10.03.2001 (inclusive of both the dates during which period the scheme would remain open). 5. Accordingly, the appellants opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and they were also conferred all the benefits accruing from the Scheme. All this happened in the year 2001. It appears that there were some issues raised before the various High Courts for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme introduced in the year 2000 by the various banks, in view of the advice given by the Government of Indian, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) dated 05.09.2000. Since, there were conflicting judgments of the various High Courts, the dispute landed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the case of K. Mohandas (supra), ultimately, laid the dispute at rest and issued directions relating to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 (for short, “VRS 2000”) while considering the State Bank of (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short, “the Pension Regulations, 1995”) of the concerned banks. The employees of the respondent-State Bank of India are governed by the pari materia (SBS) Pension Regulations, 1995. 6. The employees of the respondent-State Bank of India are governed by the pari materia (SBS) Pension Regulations, 1995. 6. After the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the Indian Banks’ Association issued a Circular dated 17.08.2019, in line with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Mohandas (supra) and it was suggested that the concerned banks may extend benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 to the VRS optees of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, after obtaining sanction at appropriate level and pay the difference between the revised pension payable and pension paid to them. 7. Thereafter, in light of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the appellants, demanded similar treatment vide representations dated 26.08.2009, 10.09.2009, 12.10.2009, 11.03.2010, 30.10.2009, 10.02.2010 and 16.03.2010. Since they were not offered the benefits, they filed the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 5750 of 2010, claiming the benefits arising from the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 8. The learned Single Judge did not find favour with the prayers made by the members of the appellant association and rejected the writ petition. Being aggrieved, they have assailed the decision before this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS (EMPLOYEES) 9. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul S. Shah, appearing with learned advocate Mr.Deepak Khanchandani, for the members of the appellant association has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the writ petition since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of K. Mohandas (supra). It is submitted that the appellants are entitled for the benefits accrued from the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 over and above the benefits, which are granted under the SBSVRS. 10. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul S. Shah, has invited our attention to the observations and findings recorded by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Mohandas (supra) and has submitted that in an identical situation, the Supreme Court has directed the concerned bank to pay the benefits of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. He has also submitted that the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 extends the benefit of additional five years. It is submitted that the appellants having retired voluntary, their case would be governed by the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 11. He has also submitted that the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 extends the benefit of additional five years. It is submitted that the appellants having retired voluntary, their case would be governed by the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 11. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has also considered the aspect of delay of 10 years in approaching the High Court, which is required to be ignored since after the decision of the Supreme Court in the year 2009 and the issuance of Circular dated 17.08.2009 by Indian Banks’ Association, the appellants have immediately approached the respondent-Bank to confer the benefits of additional five years, as envisaged under the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 12. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul S. Shah, has submitted that it was not open for the respondent-Bank to issue the Circular dated 15.02.2001, which is clarificatory in nature for denying the benefits of increased qualifying service of 5 years under the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. It is submitted that in case, the respondent- Bank intended to deny the benefits of extended qualifying service of 5 years, as envisaged in the Regulation 29(5), such intention was required to be incorporated in the scheme itself. It is submitted that the pension regulations are statutory in nature and hence, by issuing the Circular dated 15.02.2001, the benefits arising from the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 cannot be diluted. 13. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul S. Shah, has placed reliance on the judgments of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 23.03.2011 passed in W.P. Nos. 34619 of 2003 and allied matters, in the case of Jatheendranath and other Vs. State Bank of Maysore, dated 08.03.2012 passed in WA No. 4269 of 2011 and allied matters, and in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. Smt. Suvasini S. Shetty. He has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd and another, (1996) 8 SCC 347 , in the case of the State of Orrisa and Others Vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo, (2007) 16 SCC 129 and has submitted that the circular cannot override the statutory rules. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills Ltd and another, (1996) 8 SCC 347 , in the case of the State of Orrisa and Others Vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo, (2007) 16 SCC 129 and has submitted that the circular cannot override the statutory rules. For similar proposition of law, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Commissioner of Central Excise Bolpur Vs. Rattan Melting and Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1 . Thus, it is urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT (BANK) 14. In response to the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehul S. Shah, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Kamal Trivedi, appearing for the respondent-Bank has submitted that the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking the benefits of the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of K. Mohandas (supra) itself is misconceived since the issue, which was raised before the Supreme Court was entirely a different issue than the issue, which is raised in the writ petition. He has submitted that the learned Single Judge has carefully compared the facts and issue raised in the case of K. Mohandas (supra) and the facts of the case of the appellants and has concluded that the appellants are not entitled to the benefits arising from the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. It is submitted that before the employees of the respondent-Bank, opted for voluntary retirement as envisaged in the VRS Scheme, which remained open from 19.02.2001 till 10.03.2001, the respondent-Bank had issued a Circular dated 15.02.2001, clarifying that the benefit of increased qualifying service, as stipulated under the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 will not be applicable to the employees, who seek voluntary retirement under this scheme. It is submitted that all employees were very well aware of the circular and despite that, they opted for the scheme and after having got the benefits and enjoying full fruits of VRS for huge period of 10 years, they raised the claim of getting benefit of extended service of the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 15. It is submitted that all employees were very well aware of the circular and despite that, they opted for the scheme and after having got the benefits and enjoying full fruits of VRS for huge period of 10 years, they raised the claim of getting benefit of extended service of the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 15. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Kamal Trivedi, has submitted that in fact, in the case before the Supreme Court, the banking regulations were amended at the fag end of the VRS 2000 and all the employees therein were aware about Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and the benefits arising from it, whereas in the present case, the respondent-Bank has issued a clarificatory Circular dated 15.02.2001 clarifying that the employees, who had opted for VRS Scheme, would not be entitled for benefits arising out of the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. Thus, it is submitted that the Supreme Court, while examining the Pension Regulations, 1995 and in light of the amendment brought in the Regulations, has directed that the employees, who had opted for VRS 2000, will be entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. It is submitted that in fact, in the case before the Supreme Court, the employees were entitled to the benefit of pension Regulation 29(5) in addition to the ex gratia amount under the VRS 2000 however, since at the fag end of the operation of the VRS 2000, the bank issued a circular amending the scheme for withdrawal of the benefit of pension, the Supreme Court has held that in such circumstances, the employees cannot be denied benefit of the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. It is submitted that in fact, the employees before the Supreme Court were never communicated that they will not be entitled to the benefits of pension in terms of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, whereas in the instant case, the members of the appellant association were aware that they will not be entitled for such benefit under the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and despite that, they opted for VRS and after receiving all the benefits under the scheme, after a long period, they have raised their demand. 16. 16. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi, in support of his submissions has submitted that in an identical situation, the High Court of Madras vide judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 passed in W.A.MD. No. 1228 of 2016 in the case of United India Insurance Company Vs. N. Srinivasan, (2017) SCC Online Mad 35141, while examining the pari materia scheme and regulations, has held that the employees, who have opted for VRS, are not entitled to the benefits of extended qualifying service. He has submitted that the said decision has been confirmed by the Supreme Court vide judgment 26.10.2018 in the case of National Insurance Special Voluntary Retire/Retired/Employees Association and another Vs. United India Insurance Compnay Limited and another, (2018) 18 SCC 186 . Similarly, he has submitted that in the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in case of K. Bhaskaran Nair, Deputy Manager (Rtd) State Bank of Travancore Vs. State Bank of Travancore, (2015) SCC Online Ker 6336, wherein similar view has been taken relating to the issue of pari materia with regard to Regulation 29(5) and also VRS Scheme of 2001 floated by the State Bank of Travancore. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be disturbed. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 17. The entire case of the appellants hinges on the interpretation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Mohandas (supra). The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition by juxtaposing the facts of the case of K. Mohandas (supra) and the case of the appellants as below: “10. As regards the first issue this Court may quite the facts of the case in K. Mohandas (supra) injuxtaposition to the facts of the present case as under: 1. Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (“VRS 2000 for short) introduced by the Bank of India and others in the aforesaid case, clearly qmentioned that the employee, whose application for voluntary retirement is accepted and relieved from the Bank, shall be eligible for pension in terms of the Employees Pension Regulation, 1995, if he has put in 20 completed years of service in the Bank. 1. Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 (“VRS 2001 “ forshort) issued by the State Bank of Saurashtra vide circular dated 6th February 2001 signed by one MR. 1. Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 (“VRS 2001 “ forshort) issued by the State Bank of Saurashtra vide circular dated 6th February 2001 signed by one MR. IP Mishra, General Manager (o) mentioned that VRS 2001 will open on 19th February 2001 and that optees would get other benefits in terms of State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Pension Regulation, 1995. The optees in the said case had clearly understood that in addition to the ex-gratia amount under the VRS 2000, they would also be eligible for the benefit of pension under the Regulation 29 of Pension Regulation of 1995. Before the commencement of VRS 2001, vide another circular dated 15th February 2001 (pg. 104) signed bythe very officer ie Mr. I.P Mishra, General Manger (O) of State Bank of Saurashtra, the following categorical clarification was given while replying to the questions posed. Despite the aforesaid facts, Bank of India, at the fag end of the operation of VRS 2000, issued a circular amending the scheme for withdrawal of the benefit of pension. Question: Whether benefit of increased qualifying service will be available to the applicants for State Bank of Saurashtra Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Answer: The benefit of increased qualifying services as provided under Regulation 29(5) of SBS Employees Pension Regulation 1995 will not be applicable to employees who seek voluntary retirement under this Special Scheme. 2. Neither in the VRS Scheme of 2000 itself nor thereafter before the Bank's acceptance of the offer of the optees, it was ever communicated to the optees that they would not be entitled to the benefit of the pension in terms of Regulation 29(5) of the Employees Pension Regulation of 1995. 2. In view of the above, there was no question of the concerned employees represented by the petitioner Association to carry any misconception about the availability of benefit of pension under the aforesaid Regulation, when they started opting for the benefit of VRS 2001 after 19.2.2001. 3. 2. In view of the above, there was no question of the concerned employees represented by the petitioner Association to carry any misconception about the availability of benefit of pension under the aforesaid Regulation, when they started opting for the benefit of VRS 2001 after 19.2.2001. 3. The offer for voluntary Retirement in the above referred case was founded on a clear representation that in addition to the benefit of VRS Scheme 2000, benefit of pension under the Pension Regulation would be available to the optees and when the optees having relied upon the said representation made the offer for retirement, which was duly accepted by the Bank, there had resulted a concluded contract, which could not have been varied or altered by the Bank at the fag end of the operation VRS 2000, by refusing to make the payment of pension. 3 The offer for voluntary Retirement in the above referred case was founded on a clear representation that the benefit of pension under the Regulation would not be available to the optees in addition to the benefit of VRS 2001 and when optees made their offer, and when the same was accepted subsequent to the said representation, nonpayment of additional benefit to the Members of the Petitioner Association does not amount to any variation or alteration in the concluded contract. 4. In the aforesaid case, the optees employees had initiated litigation against their respective original employer ie Bank of India , which had taken a stand that the benefit of pension under the Regulation would not be available in addition to the benefit under the VRS 2000. 4. In the present case, the optees employeees had retired from the State Bank of Saurashtra under VRS 2001, whereafter w.e.f13.8.2008, State Bank of Saurashtra came to be merged in the State Bank of India under the statutory Scheme sanctioned by the Central Government under the provisions of Section 35(2) of the SBI Act, 1955 and the present litigation has been belatedly initiated against the State Bank of India in May 2010.” 18. The distinguishing feature between two cases is that in the present case, after the SBSVRS was promulgated vide Circular dated 06.02.2001 and before the Scheme was to open on 19.02.2001, the respondent-Bank issued the Circular dated 15.02.2001 clarifying the SBSVRS vis-a-vis the Pension Regulations, 1995, more particularly Regulation 29(5). The said Circular is issued by the General Manager-Mr. The distinguishing feature between two cases is that in the present case, after the SBSVRS was promulgated vide Circular dated 06.02.2001 and before the Scheme was to open on 19.02.2001, the respondent-Bank issued the Circular dated 15.02.2001 clarifying the SBSVRS vis-a-vis the Pension Regulations, 1995, more particularly Regulation 29(5). The said Circular is issued by the General Manager-Mr. I.P. Mishra, in whose signature the Circular of SBSVRS is introduced. 19. The said Circular dated 15.02.2001 specifically clarifies the query as under: “Query - 3: Whether benefit of increased qualifying service will be available to the applicants for SBSVRS? Clarification: The benefit of increased qualifying service as provided under regulation 29(5) of SBS employees Pension Regulation, 1995 will not be applicable to employees who seek voluntary retirement under this special scheme.” 20. Thus, the appellants cannot contend that such clarification was issued after the scheme was floated. The appellants are unable to dislodge the aforenoted distinguishing features of both the cases hence, we do not find any reason to doubt the same. 21. Over and above the distinguishing features, which are incorporated by the learned single judge, there is yet another vital facet of the SBSVR Scheme, which will have direct bearing on the issue. Clause 3 of SBSVRS prescribes ‘Eligibility’ of the employees, who can apply. The same is as under: “3. Eligibility: The Scheme will be open to all permanent employees of the Bank, except those specifically mentioned as ‘ineligble’ who have put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31-01-2001.” 22. At this stage, we shall refer to the Regulation 29(1) of Chapter V, which instructs grant of pension on voluntary retirement and Regulation 29(5) of the of the SBS (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The same read as under: “29(1). On or after the 1st day 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.” “(5). Pension on voluntary retirement: xxx xxx xxx (5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this Regulation shall be increased not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employees shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation.” 23. Pension on voluntary retirement: xxx xxx xxx (5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this Regulation shall be increased not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employees shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation.” 23. Clause-3 of the SBSVRS specifically mandates that those employees, who had completed 15 years of service or have completed 40 years as on 31.01.2001, are eligible to apply. Regulation 29(1) of the Pension Regulation directs that “an employee who completes 20 years of service” can apply for voluntary retirement. Thus, unless an employee satisfies the requirement of 20 years of service, he is not entitled to take voluntary retirement. After he/she opts for voluntary retirement under Regulation 29(1), he/she becomes eligible for the benefit of additional five years as per the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulation. In the case of Mohandas(supra) in paragraph 24, the Supreme Court has framed the principal question which fell for consideration. It relates to the issue of grant of benefit of addition of five years as stipulated under Regulation 29(5) to those optees, who have completed ‘20 years of service’. Thus, the vital distinguishing feature in the VRS 2000, which was considered by the Supreme Court and the present SBSVR Scheme is “completion of number of years by the optees”. The Supreme Court has held that an employee after completion of 20 years of service cannot be denied additional five years of service under the VRS 2000 since he has also become eligible for the same under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulation. 24. In the present case, only those employees, who had completed 15 years of service, could have applied to avail the benefit under the SBSVRS and not those, who had completed 20 years of service. Thus, in order to get the additional benefit of five years as envisaged under the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulation, the condition mentioned in Regulation 29(1) of completion of 20 years of service has to be mandatorily fulfilled. Thus, in order to get the additional benefit of five years as envisaged under the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulation, the condition mentioned in Regulation 29(1) of completion of 20 years of service has to be mandatorily fulfilled. Hence, it appears that the Respondent- Bank had issued the Circular dated 15.02.2001, clarifying that the optees will not get the benefit of additional five years, as envisaged under Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulation since the SBSVRS was only promulgated for those employees, who had completed 15 years of service as on 31-01-2001. Thus, the appellants cannot compare their case of voluntary retiring opted under the scheme, to that of voluntary retirement as stipulated in the Regulation 29. The voluntary retirement under the scheme is an independent facet and the benefits arising from the scheme also are unique and exclusive than the pension as stipulated in Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, wherein an employee in an ordinary course would seek to voluntary retire from the services after giving a notice of not less than three months in writing to the competent authority on completion of 20 years of service. The appellants cannot indirectly claim the benefits of additional five years under the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 25. The optees before the Supreme Court were granted retiral benefits under the Scheme except the pension under Regulation 29(5). The benefit of additional five years as per the Regulation 29(5) was excluded at the fag end of the Scheme and it was clarified by the concerned Banks, who were parties to the case of the K. Mohandas (supra) that the employees of such banks, who opted for voluntary retirement scheme, will not be entitled to the benefit of the Regulation 29(5). Such amendment was introduced at the fag end of operation of VRS 2000 however, in the present case before the scheme was to open on 19.02.2001, the members of the association banks and its employees were made aware that they would not be entitled to any increase of qualifying service as envisaged in the Regulation 29(5) of the SBS (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. 26. It is not the case of the appellants that they were not aware about the circular dated 15.02.2001. 26. It is not the case of the appellants that they were not aware about the circular dated 15.02.2001. Despite having fully conscious of the clarification and the contents of the circular, they opted for the VRS and accepted all the benefits and went into slumber. After period of 9 years of the Scheme, they approached the respondent-Bank making various representations claiming such benefits of the Regulation 29(5) on a misconceived notion by placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of K. Monhandas (supra) and the Circular issued by the Indian Banks’ Association dated 17.08.2009, they approached the respondent-bank claiming additional benefit of five years. 27. It is the case of the appellants that the scheme itself in paragraph No. 7(c) clarifies that the other benefits, which are to be paid in the pension scheme will include the pension in terms of State Bank of Saurashtra (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 and hence, they are entitled to the extended qualifying service of five years. Such contention does not merit acceptance since the other benefits, which are envisaged in Clause 7(c) would only pertain to the grant of pension in terms of Pension Regulations, 1995, but cannot include the benefits of increased qualifying services as envisaged under the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 de hors the eligibility provided in Regulation 29(1). 28. It is also noticed by us that the appellants in the writ petition did not question or challenge the Circular dated 15.02.2001 before any Forum and they have approached this Court claiming benefits of Regulation 29(5) on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Mohandas (supra). 29. At this stage, we may notice the general conditions of the Scheme, which are incorporated in Clause 9 more particularly, sub-clause (iii), which reads as under: “9. General Conditions: (iii) The employees seeking retirement under SBSVRS will not be entitled to dispute the payments received under the Scheme on any ground whatsoever. The retiring staff member and/or their nominees or legal heirs shall have no right/claim/demands against the Bank on any matter relating to the Scheme.” 30. General Conditions: (iii) The employees seeking retirement under SBSVRS will not be entitled to dispute the payments received under the Scheme on any ground whatsoever. The retiring staff member and/or their nominees or legal heirs shall have no right/claim/demands against the Bank on any matter relating to the Scheme.” 30. It is specifically clarified that the employees seeking retirement under the scheme will not be entitled to dispute the payments received under the scheme on any ground whatsoever and the retiring staff members and/or their nominees or legal heirs shall have no right/claim/demand against the Bank on any matter relating to the scheme. 31. Further, in Clause 9 of the said Regulations, sub-clause (ix) reads as under: “9. General Conditions: (ix) Bank reserves the right to modify, amend or cancel any or all the aforesaid clauses and to give effect thereto from any date it may deem fit.” 32. Thus, after the scheme was floated on 06.02.2001, the Bank had all the right to modify, amend or cancel any or all of the aforesaid clauses and to give fact thereto from any date, it may deem fit. Before the Scheme got open, the Bank has already clarified its intention with the Circular dated 15.02.2001 that the optees are not entitled to the benefits of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. While opting for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the appellants have deemed to have accepted all the terms and conditions of the voluntary retirement as well as the conditions envisaged in the Circular dated 15.02.2001 and after having accepted the same, it is not open for the appellant employees to again claim for an additional benefit, over and above the benefits, which are conferred to the employees of the respondent Bank pursuant to SBSVRS. 33. The claim of the appellant employees for the benefits under Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, would be an additional benefit over and above the benefit paid to them under the SBSVRS and hence, their own conduct estopped them from claiming any further benefit or claim in addition to one, which are already provided under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Even otherwise, as discussed herein above, the appellants cannot claim the benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 in wake of the fact that they do not qualify the provision of Regulation 29(1) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 34. Even otherwise, as discussed herein above, the appellants cannot claim the benefit of Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995 in wake of the fact that they do not qualify the provision of Regulation 29(1) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. 34. The contention raised by the appellant with regard to the statutory nature of the SBSVRS does not require further discussion, since it is answered in the judgment of K. Mohandas (supra). It is interesting to note that before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the employees that the VRS 2000 was not statutory in nature, whereas before this Court a contrary stance is taken. 35. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is established that in the case of K. Mohandas (supra), wherein the scheme of VRS 2000 was considered, there was no such issue which is akin to the issue raised in the writ petition since in the present case, the respondent Bank has categorically issued a circular stating that the optees, barring the additional five years benefits envisaged in the Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995, hence, the case of the appellant employees would not fall under the judgment rendered in the case of K. Mohandas(supra). 36. Thus, the appellants have misconstrued the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of K. Mohandas (supra). In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in rejecting the writ petition filed by the members of the appellant association claiming the benefits under Regulation 29(5) of Pension Regulations. 37. The appeal is sans merit hence, it fails and is rejected. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 5750 of 2010 stands confirmed.