STATE BANK OF PATIALAversusPRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS.

I




    •                      [2014] 11 S.C.R. 893


                       STATE BANK OF PATIALA                         A
                                    v.
                      PRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2010 etc.)
                             JULY 07, 2014
                                                                     B
              [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
               .     V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]

            Service Law:
                                                                     c
         Pension - Entitlement - To the employees who took
    voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and
    had completed 19 ~years of service - Held: the employees
    having completed qualifying service for getting pension as
    per pension regulations, were entitled to pension - State Bank   o
    of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 -
    Regulation 14 and 29.

            Dismissing the appeals, the Court
         HELD: 1. The respondents having completed more              E
    than 10 years of service in the Bank on the date of
    retirement; fulfill the requirement of qualifying service as
    per Regulation 14 of State Bank of Patiala (Employees)
    Pension Regulations, 1995. [Para 22] [908-B]
                                                                     F
             2. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995
        provides that if broken period is more than six months,
        it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the
        respondents-writ petitioners having completed more than
        19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are
        to be treated to have completed 20 years of service. [Para G
        24] [908-D-E] .

          Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora 2008 (17)
        SCR 1151 :2009 (3) SCC 217; Bank of India vs. K.
                              893                                    H
    894      SUPREME COURT REPORTS
                ~.
                                                 (2014] 11 S.C.R.           •
A   Mohandas and Ors. 2009 (5) SCR 118: 2009 (5) SCC 313 -
    distinguished.

       Dharam Pal Singh v. Punjab National Bank 2008 (1)
    PLR 745 - referi:e.d to.
                      ~}

B                          Case Law Reference:
          2008 (1) PLR 745        referred to          . Pa"ra 3
          2008 (17) SCR 1151      distinguished         Para 6

c         2009 (5) SCR 118        distinguished         Para 6

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 172
    of 2010.·                                       ·

      From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2009 of the
D High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L._P. A.
  No. 312 of 2008 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6540 of 2003.

                                WITH

    C. A. Nos. 173, 177, 178, 179, 180, 186, 187 of 2010 and
E   1916 of 2011

         L. Nageshwar Rao, ASG, Sanjay Kapur, A11mol Chandan, .
    Priyanka Das, Shubhra Kapur for the Appellant.        - ... ·

F       H. C. Arora, Rajat Sharma, Dr. Kailash Chand, R. S. ·
    Kataria, S. K. Gupta, Balbir Singh Gupta, Satpal Singh for the
    Respondents.                                                   ~

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by               ,
                                                                       'J
G       SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. All these..;.
    appeals have been preferred by the State Ban!< of Patiala;;,
    (hereinafter referred to as "Bank")against different judgments,
    and orders passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court at
    Chandigarh but since common issues were involved they were
H
•    STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. PRITAM SINGH BEDI 895
         [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
     heard together and disposed of by the impugned common        A
    .judgment.

          2. A number of employees who were allowed to retire from
    the Bank pursuant to scheme called State Bank of Patiala
    Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000(herein after referred to as B
    the "Scheme") introduced by Circular dated 20th January, 2001,
    and had completed more than 19 and Y. years of service, in
    whose favour pension was not released by the Bank in
    accordance with the State Bank of Patiala (Employees)
    Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the C
    "Regulations, 1995"). They moved before the High Court for
    direction to the Bank and its authorities to release pension in
    their favour in accordance with the Scheme. By one of the
    judgments dated 22nd October, 2008, learned Single Judge
    of the High Court allowed the writ petitions preferred by some
    of the aggrieved employees (respondents) in C.A. No.172 of D
    2010 and directed to pay pension in their favour. Against the
    said order the Bank preferred LPA No.312 of 2008 before the
     Division Bench, which by the impugned judgment dated 9th
    January, 2009 dismissed the LPA and affirmed the order
     passed by the learned Single Judge. The said impugned E
    judgment dated 9th January, 2009 passed in LPA No.312 of
    2008 is under challenge in C.A.No.172 of 2010.

         Some other similarly situated employees who had
    completed more than 19 and Y. years of service and retired F
    persons to Voluntary Retirement Scheme also preferred similar
    writ petitions which were allowed. Against the respective
    judgments Bank filed different LPAs which were also dismissed
    by different orders in view of the judgment dated 9th January,
    2009. Against the judgments which have followed the earlier G
    decision, the rest of the civil appeals have been preferred by
    the Bank.

     . 3. The High Court by the impugned judgment referring'to
    earlier Division Bench decision of the High Court in Dharam
                                                                  H
     896      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 11 S.C.R.
                                                                          •
A      Pal Singh v. Punjab National Bank,.2008 (1) PLR 745 held
    ,, that the pension was payable under Regulation 28 and that
       Regulation 29 will not apply. The Division Bench ·of the High
       Court further held as follows:

B          "12. A perusal of the Regulation 28 shows that on
           attaining the age of superannuation specified in
           Regulations or settlements pension is payable. The age
           of superannuation has been laid down in Service ·
           Regulations which is said to be 60 years now and earlier
           it was 58 years. But under the Voluntary Retirement
c          Scheme, which according to the writ petitioners will be at
           par with Settlement, the requirement is 15 years of service
           or 40 years of age, which admittedly the writ petitioners
           had. Under Regulation 32 of the pension is payable on
           premature retirement on account' of orders of the Bank if
D          the employee was otherwise entitled to pension/
           superannuation on that day. Read with Regulations 14
           and 28, the said age is 10 ye·ars and if read with the
           Scheme, it is 15 years of age or 40 years of service and
           in either case the employees, were covered by the
E          pension scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
           Regulation 29 relating to voluntary retirement was not
           applicable. Thus, contention on behalf of the Bank that
           Regulation 29 applied and therefore, pension payable
           only after 20 years service cann9t be accepted."
F
          The view taken by the learned Single Judge was affirmed
     by the Division Bench and the LPA was dismissed.

          4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank referred to
     Regulations 13, 28,29, 32 and Clau'se 3 of State Bank of
G    Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme and submitted as follows:

           "(a) Regulation 14 which refers to qualifying service is not
           applicable in view of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court
           in the case of PNB. vs. Dharam Pal;
H
•   STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. PRITAM SINGH BEDI
        [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
                                                              897


      (b) Clause 3 of the SBP VRS would not apply for pension, A
      as it speaks of eligibility for applying under the Scheme, ·
      particularly, in view of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court
      in the case of Bank of India (supra);

      (c) Regulation 32 which relates to premature retirement        B
      would also not apply as the retirement of employee was
      not on the orders of the Bank in public interest, by way
      of punishment, further SBP VRS was not by way of a
      settlement.··

      (d) Thus it is only Regulation 29 "pension on voluntary. C
      retirement" which would be applicable for granting
      pension, in case of those applying under SBP VRS.

      (e) In case it is held that SBP VRS is not a voluntary
      retirement in accordance with Regulation 29, then it would     o
      mean that the respondent employees have not retired,
      as per Regulation 2(y), not covered under Pension
      Regulations and hence not entitled for pension."

     5. On the other hand, following submissions were made
by the learned counsel for the respondents:                          E

      (i) All the respondents have completed more than 19 and
      ~ years of service but less than 20 years in the Bank,
      therefore, they are entitled to treat the broken year as one
      year under Regulation 18. Therefore, in view of                F
      Regulation 18, the respondents should be treated to have
      completed 20 years of service.

      (ii) The respondents are entitled for pension under
      Regulation 32 otherwise a/so the respondents are entitled      G
      to pension even under Regulation 29."

    6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Bank relied on the
decisions of this Court in Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh
Deora, 2009 (3) SCC 217 and Bank of India vs. K.
Mohandas and others, 2009(5) SCC 313. On the other hand,             H
    898      SUPREME COURT REPORTS
                                          '
                                                  [2014) 11 S.C.R.
                                                                        •
A   according to the counselfor the respondents, the present case
    is different than the decisions in Bank of Baroda (supra) and
    Bank of India (supra) as the respondents are guided by
    Regulations 18, 28, 29 and 32 of the State Bank of Patiala
    (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 which varies from the
B   provisions of the other Banks.

        7. In tile present case the question arises for consideration
    is whether under the State Bank of Patiala (Employees)
  · Pension. Regulations, 1995 the ·respondents are entitled for
C pension.

        8. Similar question was considered by this Court in Bank
    of Baroda (supra). In the said case Bank of Baroda
    employees were retired pursuant to· Bank of Baroda
    Employees Voluntary Retirement Sctieme, 2001. However; they
D   had not completed 20 years of service; therefore, they were
    denied the benefit of pension under their Pension Regulations,
    1995. In the "said case this Court noticed Regulation 28 of Bank
    of Baroda Pension Regulations as it stood prior to the
    amendment made on 2nd January, 2004 which was as follows:
E
                "28. Superannuation pension.-Superannuation
          pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired
          on his attaining the age of superannuation specified in
          the SeNice Regulations or settlements."
F        9. This Court also noticed the amended Regulation 28 in
    Bank of Baroda(supra) which was published in the Gazette
    of India on 2nd January, 2004 and provides as follows:

                "28. Superannuation pension.-Superannuation
G         pension shall be granted to an employee who has retired
          on his attaining the age of superannuation specified in
          the SeNice Regulations or settlements:

                Provided that, with effect from 1-9-2000 pension
          shall also be granted to an employee who opts to retire
H         before attaining the age of superannuation, but after
•   · STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. PRITAM SINGH BEDI
          [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
                                                               899


        rendering service for a minimum period of 15 years in          A
        terms of any scheme that may be framed for such
        purpose by the Board with the approval of the
        Government."

         10. Having noticed the aforesaid provisions and Regulation - B
    29 of the Bank of Baroda Pension Regulation which is peri
    materia, similar one, this Court in view of the fact that the ·
    respondents of said Bank had not completed the required
    length of qualifying service as provided under Regulation 28 of
    Regulations, 1995, held that the respondents were not eligible
    for pension under the Pension Regulation, 1995 of the Bank of C
    Baroda.

         11. Subsequently, similar provisions of different Bank fell
    for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Bank of India
    (supra), referring to the scheme and different provisions which    D
    are almost similar to the present one held as under:

              "33. What was, in respect of pension, the intention
        of the banks at the time of bringing out VRS 2000? Was
        it not made expressly clear therein that the employees E
        seeking voluntary retirement will be eligible for pension
        as per the Pension Regulations? If the intention was not
        to give pension as provided in Regulation 29 and
        particularly sub-regulation (5) thereof, they could have
        said so in the Scheme itself. After all much thought had
        gone into the formulation of VRS 2000 and it came to be F
        framed after great deliberations. The only provision that
        could have been in mind while providing for pension as
        per the Pension Regulations was Regulation 29.
        Obviously, the employees, too, had the benefit of
        Regulation 29(5) in mind when they offered for voluntary G
        retirement as admittedly Regulation 28, as was existing
        at that time, was not applicable at all. None of
        Regulations 30 to 34 was attracted.
               37. The amendment to Regulation 28 can, at best,        H
    900      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 11 S.C.R.
                                                                        •
A         be said to have been intended to cover the employees
          with 15 years of service or more but less than 20 years
          of service. This intention· is reflected from the ·
          communication dated 5-9-2000 sent by the Government
          of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic
B         Affairs (Banking Division) to the Personnel Advisor,
          Indian Banks' Association.

                39. Two things immediately become noticeable
          from the said communication. One is that as per
          Regulation 29 of the Pensio.n Regulations, 1995, an
c         employee can take voluntary retirement after 20 years of
          qualifying service and become eligible for pension. The
          other thing is that the Scheme provides that the
          employees with 15 years of service or 40 years of age
          shall be eligible to take voluntary retirement under the
D         Scheme and under Regulation 29, the employees
          having rendered 15 years of serviCe or completed 40
          years of age but not completed 20 years of service shall
          not be eligible for pensionary benefits on taking voluntary
          retirement under the Scheme.' ·

                 40. The use of the words ·such employees" in the
          communication is referable to employees having
          rendered 15 years of service but not completed 20 years
          of service and, therefore, it was decided to bring an
          amendment in the Regulations so that the employees
F
          having not completed 20 years' service do not lose the
          benefit of pension. The amendment in Regulation 28, as
          is reflected from the afore referred communication, was
          intended to cover the employees· who had rendered 15
          years' service but not completed 20 years' service. It was
G         not intended to cover the optees who had already
          completed 20 years' service as the provisions contained
          in Regulation 29 met that contingency.

                46. The precise effect of the Pension Regwations,
H         for the purposes of pension, having been made part of
•     STATE BANK OF .PATIALA v. PRITAM SINGH BEDI 901
          [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
        the Scheme, is that the Pension Regulations, to the A
        extent, these are applicable, must be read into the
        Scheme. It is pertinent to bear in mind that interpretation
        clause of VRS 2000 states that the words and
        expressions used in the Scheme but not defined and
        defined in the rules/regulations shall have the same B
        meaning respectively assigned to them under the rules/
        regulations. The Scheme does not define the expression
        "retirement" or "voluntary retirement". We have, therefore,
        to fall back on the definition of "retirement" given in
        Regulation 2(Y) whereunder voluntary retirement under c
        Regulation 29 is considered to be retirement. Regulation
        29 uses the expression "voluntary retirement under these
        Regulations". Obviously, for the purposes of the Scheme,
        it has to be understood to mean with necessary changes
        in points of details. Section 23 of the Contract Act has D
        no application to the present fact situation.

              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 E
        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 1-9-2000 could not
        have applied to the optees under the Scheme who had
        completed service of 20 years. Lack of challenge to F
        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.
                                                                      G
              50. It is true that VRS 2000 is a complete package
        in itself and contractual in nature. However, in that
        pac}<age, 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
                                                                      H
.•'
    902      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 11 S.C.R.     •
A         only provision in the Pension Regulations at the relevant
          time during the operation of VRS 2000 concerning
          voluntary retirement was Regulation 29 and sub-
          regulation (5) thereof provides for weightage of addition
          of five years to qualifying service for pension to those
8         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.
c                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
D         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 S(Jecial benefits in the
          form of ex gratia and in addition thereto, inter alia,
          pension under the Pension Regulations which also
E         provided for weightage of five years of qualifying service
          for the purposes of pension to the employees who had· .
          completed 20 years' service." ;

         12. In the said case of Bank of India (supra), this Court~
F   noticed the observation made by this Court in the case of Ban/!_
    of Baroda (supra) but distinguished the same with the
    following observation:

                "61. The observations made by this Court in Bank
          of Baroda, (2009) 3 SCC 217, which have been quoted
G         above and relied upon by the. banks in support of their
          contention have to be understood in the factual backdrop,
          namely, that the employee had completed only 13 years . .
          of service and, was not eligible for the pens1on under the
          Pension Regulations, 1995 and for the benefit of addition
H
•    STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. PRITAM SINGH BEDI
         [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
                                                                 903 ·


        of five years to qualifying service under Regulation 29(5),      A
        an employee must have completed 20 years of service.
        The question therein was not identical in form with the
        question here to be decided.

               62. The following observations in Bank. of                B
        BarodafsupraJ are significant: (SCC p. 221, para 21)

        "21 . ... since both the Tribunal as well as the High Court
        appear not to have considered or taken note of the fact
        that the respondent was not eligible for pension as /'Je had
        not completed 15 years of qualifying service .... "              C
              63. The decision of this Court in Bank of
         Barod(supra)is, thus, clearly distinguishable as the
        employee therein had not completed qualifying-service
        much less 20 years of service for being eligible to the          0
        weightage under Regulation 29(5) and cannot be applied
        to the present controversy nor does that matter decide
        the question here to be decided in the present group of
        matters.·

         13. For determination of the issue, it is desirable to refer    E
    to the relevant provisions of the State Bank of Patiala Voluntary
    Retirement Scheme, 2001, the background of such Scheme
    and relevant provisions of State Bank of Patiala (Employees)
    Pension Regulations, 1995.
                                                                         F
         14. Pursuant to Government of India, Indian Banks
    Association advice different Banks introduced Voluntary
    Retirement Scheme including the State Bank of Patiala
    Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 introduced by the Bank,
    by its Circular No. PerNRS/48 dated 20th January, 2001.              G

          Clause 3 of the Scheme prescribed eligibility of voluntary
    retirement as follows:

        "Clause 3:
                                                                         H
     904          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014) 11 S.C.R.   •
A          Eligibility

           The scheme will be open to all permanent employees of
           the Bank, except those specifically mentioned as
           'ineligible who have put in 15 years of service or have
           completed 40 years of age as on 31st December, 2000.
B
           Age will be reckoned on the basis of the date of birth as
           entered in service record.

                While calculating the period of service, absence,
           which is reckoned as service, will be excluded.
c
                 If-an officer, who has not completed mandatory rural
           or semi-urban assignment (either wholly or partly)
           submits an application for retirement under SBP VRS
           before approving his case, his promotions would stand
D          withdrawn if confirmation subsequent to promotion is
           StJbject to completing such mandatory service."

         15. Apart from ex gratia which were offered under the
     Scheme, the follcwing other benefits were prescribed therein:

E          "Clause 7:

        . Other benefits

            (i)     . Gratuity as payable under the extant instructions
                      on the relevant date. ·
F
            (ii)     Provident Fund contribution as per SBP
                     Employees' Provident' Rules as on relevant date.

            (iii)    Pension or Bank's contribution to Provident Fund
·G
                     as the case may be as per rules applicable on the
                     relevant date on the basis of actual years of
                     service rendered.   ·
                     )()()(   )()()(   )()()(      xxi.'

H          16. The respondents who had completed more than 19
•    STATE BANK OF PATIJ\LA v. PRITAM SINGH BEDI 905
         [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
    and % years of service applied for and were allowed to             A
    Voluntary Retirement Scheme aforesaid. They have been paid
    most of the benefits but pensionary benefits were not paid to
    them. Therefore, they had to mol(e before the High Court.

         17. State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension
                                                                       8
    Regulations, 1995 are applicable to full time employees of the
    Bank. Regulation 2(w) defines qualifying service and 2(y)
    defines retirement, they are as follows:

        "2(w) "qualifying service" means the service rendered
        while on duty or otherwise which shall be taken info C
        account for the purpose of pension under the~e
        regulations;

        2(y) "retirement" means cessation from Bank's service:-

                (a)   on attaining the age of superannuation D
                      specified in -Service Regulations of
                      Settlements;

                (b)   on voluntary retirement in accordance with
                      provisions contained in regulation 29 of E
                      these regulations;

                (c)   on.premature retirement by the Bank before
                      attaining the age of superannuation
                      specified in Service Regulations or F
                      Settlement;"

         18. Chapter IV relates to qualifying service. Regulation 14
    defines qualifying service as under:

        "14.Qualifvinq Service-                                        G
              Subject to the other conditions contained in these
        regulations, an employee who has rendered a minimum
        of ten years of service in the Bank, on the date of his
        retirement or on the date on which he is deemed to have
                                                                       H
    906      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 11 S.C.R.    •
A         retired shall qualify for pension."

       . For the purpose of qualifying service, under the said
    Chapter IV Regulation 18 prescribes broken period of service
    of less than one year as under:
B         "18.Broken period of service of less than one year-

                If the period of service of an employee includes
          broken period of service is less than one year, then if
          such broken period is more than six months, it shall be
c         treated as one year and if such broken period is six
          months. or less it shall be ignored."

         19. Chapter V relates to Classes of Pension (Classes of
    Pension). Regulation 28 deals with superannuation pension as
    .under:
0
          "28.Superannuation Pension-

                Superannuation pension shall be granted to an
          employee who has retired on his attaining the age of
E         superannuation specified in the Service Regulations or
          settlements."                 ·

         20. Regulation 29 relates to Pension on Voluntary
    Retirement, relevant portion of which reads as under:

F         "29.Pension on Voluntarv Retirement-

           (1)   On or after the /st day of November, 1993, at any
                 time after an employee has completed twenty
                 years of qualifying service he may, by writing to
                 the competent authority retire from service;
G
                 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
H
•    STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. PRITAM SINGH BEDI
         [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
                                                               907


               charge of the post in India and has served for a        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
                                                                   8
               autonomous body or a public sector undertaking
               or company or institution body,. whether
               incorporated or not to which he is on deputation
               at the time of seeking voluntary retiremen.t.

               Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply C
               to an employee who is deemed to have retired in
               accordance with clause (1) of Regu(ation 2."

               xxx xxx        xxx              xxx

         (5)   The qualifying service of an employee retiring D
               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 years and it does not take E
               him beyond the date of superannuation."        ·

       21. For premature retirement pension one may refer to
    Regulation 32, which reads as under:

        "32. Premature Retirement Pension
                                                                       F

             Premature retirement Pension may be granted to
        an employee who, -

         (a)   has rendered minimum ten years of service;              G

         (b)   retires from service on account of orders of the
               Bank to retire prematurely in the public interest for
               any other reason specified in service regulations
               or settlement, if otherwise he was entitled to such
               pension on superannuation on that date.•                H   '
    908       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2014] 11 S.C.R.      •
A       Regulation .33 deals with an employee compulsorily retired
    from service as a penalty and which is not applicable in the
    present case.

           22. The respondents completed more than 1O years of
B   service in the Bank on the date of retirement; therefore, they
    fulfill the requirement of qualifying service as per Regulation 14.
                                           •
         23. It has not been disputed by appellant-Bank that the
    respondents in all the appeals have completed much more than
    19 years 6 months of service in the Bank. For example,
C   respondent No.1-Prakash Chand in C.A. No.173 of 2010 had
    joined the Bank on 4th May, 1981 and relieved on 31st March,
    2001. Thus, he had completed 19 years, 10 months and 28
    days of qualifying service on the date of relieving from service .
                                                                   •
o         24. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995
    provides that if broken period fs more than six months, it shall
    be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondents-writ
    petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months
    of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed
E   20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither raised
    nor decided in the case of 'Bank of Baroda' or 'Bank of
    India'.
          25. ln view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank cannot
    derive the benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of
F   Baroda as the employees who were parties before the Court
    in the said case had not completed 20 years of service. As per
    the decision of this Court in Bank of India, the respondents-
    writ petitioners having completed 20 years of service are
    entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.
G
         26. In view of the finding recorded above, the appeals do
    not have merit in reference i,yith the impugned judgment.they
    are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

    Kalpana K. Tripathy                              Appeals dismissed.
H