KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. By the judgment impugned dated 21.2.2008, learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the appellant-petitioners to claim the benefit of pension on grant of voluntary retirement as per provisions of General Insurance Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme of 2004'). By the same judgment learned Single Bench also decided cases of the employees who sought voluntary retirement under the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

2. In these appeals, at the threshold it is stated by learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant-petitioners that the case of the appellants was different than the case of the bank employees, but learned Single Bench by treating the provisions of the Scheme of 2004 para-materia to the scheme applicable for bank employees, considered and decided the writ petitions in light of the scheme made for bank employees, instead of considering as per provisions of the Scheme of 2004. It is also pointed out that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh, reported in 2014 DNJ (SC) 342, has already examined the entire issue in question with finding that the employees of the insurance company, who sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme of 2004, are entitled to pension.

3. Per contra, as per learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondent insurance companies, the judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh (supra) is per incuriam being passed without taking into consideration the other judgments dealing with the same issue. It is asserted that in light of earlier as well as subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court, the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Kirpal Singh (supra) is not correct.

4. The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of these appeals is as under:

In exercise of its powers Under Section 17A of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972, the Central Government introduced the General Insurance Employee's Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2004. Para 3 of the scheme stipulating the eligibility conditions for employees who could opt for voluntary retirement from the services of the insurance company is as under:

“Eligibility

(1) All permanent full time employees will be eligible to seek special voluntary retirement under this Scheme provided they have attained the age of 40 years and completed 10 years of qualifying services as on the date of notification.

(2) An employee who is under suspension or against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated shall not be eligible to opt for the scheme;

Provided that the case of an employee who is under suspension or against whom disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated made be considered by the Board of the Company concerned having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the decision taken by the Board shall be final.”

5. In para 5 of the scheme those seeking voluntary retirement were held entitled to ex-gratia amount to be determined according to the said provision. In Para 6 of the scheme were stipulated other benefits to which the employees opting for voluntary retirement under the scheme would be entitled, are given. Para 6 referred above reads as under:

“6. Other benefits:-

(1) An employee opting for the scheme shall also be eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex-gratia amount mentioned in para 5 namely:

(a) Provident Fund;

(b) Gratuity as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) or gratuity payable under the Rationalisation Scheme, as the case may be;

(c) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per General Insurance (Employee's) Pension Scheme 1995, if eligible. However, the additional notional benefit of the five years of added service as stipulated in para 30 of the said pension Scheme shall not be admissib