A bank has the power to modify a voluntary retirement scheme if the scheme itself provides for such a power.

( 1 ) THE petitioner No. 1 society and some of its members including office-bearers, who are all officers of various levels of State Bank of India, filed this writ petition complaining that although, they applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme floated in respect of employees of the bank and were otherwise eligible were refused the benefits of the said scheme unreasonably.

( 2 ) FACTS stated in the petition which are relevant for its disposal are that Indian Banks' Association with the approval of the Government of India made a policy-decision introducing Voluntary Retirement Scheme in all public sector banks and advised them the salient features of the scheme by their letter dated August 31, 2000. Accepting the recommendation made by the Indian Banks' Association, the Central Board of Directors of the bank by its resolution dated December 27, 2000, approved a scheme called the SBI Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme ).

( 3 ) IN the said scheme it was provided that all permanent employees being officers and other employees with 15 years of service or 40 years of age were eligible to opt for voluntary retirement under the said scheme except those who have executed bonds and have not completed it or those who are serving abroad under special arrangements/bonds or those against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated/pending or are under suspension or those who were appointed on contract basis or those who are highly skilled and qualified staff or are specialist officers or watch and ward staff. Accordingly, the members of the petitioner No. 1 having eligibility under the said scheme applied for voluntary retirement under the said scheme.

( 4 ) AFTER the period for opting for retirement under the scheme was over, the respondent No. 4 the Deputy Managing Director and CDO of the said bank issued an order by letter, dated February 2, 2001, introducing among other things a fresh condition that the application of the officers who were eligible and who had made applications for the benefit under the said scheme and have completed 55 years of age on or about December 31, 2000, may be accepted. Applying the altered condition, applications of some members of the petitioner No. 1 were rejected. Such action of the respondent-bank in altering the condition of eligibility for applying under the scheme after the scheme was floated and the officers opted for the same, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

( 5 ) AFFIDAVIT-IN-OPPOSITION has been filed by the respondent-bank authorities and affidavit-in-reply was filed by the petitioners. Heard Sri Saktinath Mukherji learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hirak Mitra, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 6 ) THE first contention of the petitioner is that the voluntary retirement under the scheme is an offer made by the employer on certain terms and conditions fulfilling which officers were entitled to the benefits under the scheme and when any officer opts for the same having all due qualifications prescribed under the scheme, the benefit cannot be refused by the bank except on the ground that the officer concerned is not having all requisite qualifications under the scheme. As an employer the bank had right to impose reasonable conditions as regards eligibility for making an offer and once the scheme is floated and the officers apply thereunder disclosing their eligibility, condition of the scheme could not be altered nor such option could be refused on any such altered condition.

( 7 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the scheme was floated for declared purpose and object and the ground on which alteration was effected raising the cut-off age from 40 years to 55 years have no nexus with such objects and purposes of the said scheme and in fact those go to defeat the very said purposes and objects of the scheme.

( 8 ) ON behalf of the respondents it is contended that t