1. All these petitioners being denied of pensionary benefits under the joint note dated 27.4.2010, are before this Court.

2. The brief background of these cases is that:

3. There was a persistent demand for pension as a third terminal benefit. In the banking industry, except the payment of provident fund and the gratuity, there was no provision for pensionary benefit. The service conditions of the employees was based on the terms of settlement between the employees' Union and the Management, based on such settlement, the Bank was framing the regulation with the approval of the Central Government. However, the Banking Industry noticing the persistent demand, constituted a non-statutory body called "The Indian Banks Association" (in short referred as ‘I.B.A.’) to negotiate with the employees' association and various Trade Unions of the Banks.

4. The IV Pay Commission submitted its report on 1.1.1986, recommending the liberalised pension scheme for the Central Government employees. The Bank Employees' Association and the Trade Unions of the Banks found that, the liberalised pension scheme also be introduced in the Banking industry, as the liberalised pension scheme is recommended by the IV Pay Commission for Central Government employees. Added to this, the Reserve Bank of India introduced pension scheme for its employees on 1.11.1990, with effect from 1.1.1986. Boosted by the Reserve Bank of India's decision to provide pensionary benefit to its employees, the banking employees intensified their demonstration. When, despite their repeated demands, and agitation, both the Central Government as well as the I.B.A. did not heed to their request, the Trade Unions of the Banks decided 2.11.1993. In the meanwhile, the I.B.A. having noticed the seriousness of the situation, for the first time, the I.B.A. and the Trade Union agreed to meet on the issue of providing pension to the Bank employees, accordingly, on 21.10.1993, they agreed to formulate the pensionary scheme on par with R.B.I. In pursuance of negotiations on 25.10.93 a recommendation was sent to the Government of India for adopting pensionary benefit to the employees of the commercial banks. In furtherance of recommendation, both agreed to fix a date for signing the agreement. As many as 59 banks represented through I.B.A. signed the memorandum of agreement on 29.10.1993, fixing the effective date from 1.11.1993. It was agreed to introduce the pensionary benefit as a second retirement benefit, as against the contributory provident fund.

5. The said scheme was made applicable to those employees, who were in service as on 1.1.1986 and retired thereafter including existing employees. A draft circulars were prepared by various banks accordingly for the benefit of Bank employees, an information was issued to enable the intending employees for exercising their option for opting the pensionary benefit, however, the circular/regulations contained a clause for forfeiture of pension in case the employee is found to be involved in a strike against the Bank. However, in bipartite agreement, it was not agreed. This clause was contrary to the terms of the settlement agreed to between the Trade Union and the I.B.A. Apprehending the forfeiture, only 48% of the employees opted for pensionary benefit, 52%, they did not exercise their option and sought for different mode of terminal benefits like V.R.S., resignation or under other schemes.

6. In the meanwhile, some of the employees, who could not exercise option in time, sought for extension of time, and on refusal of the same, approached this Court. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed, against which, writ appeals were filed and writ appeals also came to be dismissed, as against which, S.L.P.No.3634/2006 and other connected petitions were filed before the Apex Court, the Apex Court by order dated 22.2.2008 granted leave.

7. After the grant of leave and while the civil appeals were pending, second round of negotiation started betwe