JUDGMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“A. Direct the respondent to add 4 extra years of service of petitioner in his actual 28 years of service for calculation of pension as per the rule 26 of the Chapter IV of “General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995.

B. Direct the respondent to revise/enhance the pension of the petitioner by calculating 32 years of service of the petitioner as per the rule 26 of the Chapter IV of “General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995.

C. Direct the respondent to pay the entire arrear of pension and commutation value which is actual difference of the monthly pension amount and commutation value with interest @ 24 % p.a since the petitioner retired from his service 31-07-2015 till the revision/enhancement of the pension of the petitioner.

D. Pass any other or such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in order to secure the ends of justice.

E. Award the costs of proceedings.”

2. As per the narrative of facts in the writ petition, an advertisement was published in Hindustan Times for recruitment of Investigators, Legal Officers and Engineers in the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officers by the Respondent on 26.08.1985. Being eligible for the post, Petitioner applied and being successful in the long procedure of recruitment, was selected and offered appointment by a letter dated 17.06.1987to the post of Legal Officer andjoined the same.

3. In 1995, Respondent introduced the General Insurance (Employees’) Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1995 Scheme’) and after going through the entire Scheme, Petitioner opted to be a part of the 1995 Scheme by filling the option form on 19.10.1995, which was duly accepted by the Respondent. Petitioner continued in service till he retired on 31.07.2015 and avers that he became eligible for pension as per paragraph 26 of the 1995 Scheme. Pension of the Petitioner was, however, fixed without adding 4 years in qualifying service as per Clause 26 of 1995 Scheme and therefore, according to the Petitioner, he has suffered a loss of nearly Rs.5,000/- per month in his pension, which will ultimately have a bearing on the family pension at the appropriate stage. Petitioner made several representations to add 4 years of service for the purpose of calculation of pension by granting benefit as per Clause 26, but to no avail.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that benefit of Clause 26 of the Pension Scheme be granted to the Petitioner by adding 4 extra years to the qualifying service for purpose of fixing his pension. It is urged that the decision of the Respondent to deny him this benefit on the ground that only actual service period rendered with the Respondent will be taken for fixing pension is wholly erroneous with no basis in law. Similar pension scheme of 1995 was applicable in the Nationalized Banks namely Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 with a similar clause being Regulation 26 and many retired employees of the Banks on denial of similar benefit to them had approached the Court and finally the Supreme Court in V. Vijayan etc. v. Chairman and Managing Director of Bank of Baroda and Ors. etc., Civil Appeal No(s).9371-9374 of 2017 on 20.07.2017, held that they were entitled to add the additional years of service for calculation of their pension. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.17322/2017 in SLP(C) No.4260/2015 titled Vasudha Rambhadran v. Syndicate Bank, where similar benefit was granted to the Petitioner. Learned counsel submits that basis the judgments of the Supreme Court, Indian Banks’ Association issued a circular dated 01.02.2018 and All India Bank Pensioners’ &Retirees’ Confederation issued a circular dated 05.02.2018 granting benefits to their employees and den