K.S. JHAVERI, J.

1. Rule. Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the respondents waives service of notice of Rule. With the consent of parties the petitions are taken up for final hearing today. Heard learned advocates for both the sides at length.

2. By way of filing these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the action of the respondents in denying the benefits of Bank of Baroda Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees to the employees who had opted to retire under the Bank of Baroda Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001.

3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present petitions are set out as under:

3.1 The respondent bank introduced a scheme vide circular dated 09.11.2000 with effect from 01.09.2000 called the Bank of Baroda Contributory Medical Assistance Scheme for Retired Employees (hereinafter referred to as 'the scheme'). In the year 2000, vide circular dated 14.12.2000, the respondent bank also introduced voluntary retirement scheme known as Bank of Baroda Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the BOBEVRS-2001). The petitioners opted for voluntary retirement under the said BOBEVRS-2001.

3.2 The petitioners being retired employees of the respondent bank made several representations for availing medical benefits under the scheme for the employees who opted for BOBEVRS-2001. However, under one pretext or the other, the benefit of the said scheme was not extended to them.

3.3 Approximately 59 retired employees who had opted for BOBEVRS-2001 and those who were not extended the benefit of the said scheme approached this court by way of Special Civil Applications No. 14978 to 15036 of 2010 wherein this Court vide order dated 25.11.2010 directed them to make fresh representations to the respondents. The said employees accordingly represented their case through authorized representatives but the respondent bank vide communication dated 14.02.2011 rejected the request contained in the representation and held that the benefits of the scheme cannot be extended to the retired employees who had opted for voluntary retirement under BOBEVRS-2001. Being aggrieved by the said communication dated 14.02.2011, the petitioners have approached this court by way of the present petitions.

4. Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the communication/order dated 14.02.2011 and the circular dated 07/08.05.2001 issued by the respondent bank are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. He submitted that the respondents have wrongly drawn distinction between the employees who retired in other manner and can avail benefit under the said scheme and the employees who have retired under the BOBEVRS-2001 to whom the said benefit is not extended.

4.1 Mr. Mehta submitted that the bank has denied to extend the benefit of the scheme even after reliance was placed by the petitioners on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bank of India and Others vs. Bank of India Retd. Emp. Welfare Assn. & Others.

4.2 Mr. Mehta submitted that the scheme was made effective from 01.09.2000 whereas the BOBEVRS-2001 was made operative between 15.01.2001 and 14.02.2001 and thus the scheme was prior in time even before BOBEVRS-2001 came into force and that there was no scope of excluding the employees of BOBEVRS-2001 from the scheme.

4.3 Mr. Mehta also submitted that in fact Clause 11(iv) of BOBEVRS-2001 provides for additional retirement benefit wherever eligible and applicable and therefore there is no specific exclusion from taking benefit of the scheme. He submitted that denial to extend benefits of the scheme on this ground is arbitrary and unjust.

5. Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent bank supported the stand of the bank and submitted that the petitions are barred by delay and laches. He submitted that the scheme for medical benefits was floated in 2000 and the BOBEVRS in 2001.