Employees retiring under a voluntary retirement scheme with 15 years of service are entitled to pension despite statutory regulations demanding 20 years, emphasizing contractual obligations over rigid regulatory interpretations.

1. These two Writ Appeals raising common questions of law and facts have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 14/03/2014 in Writ Petition Nos. 26563 and 19572 of 2012. It shall be sufficient to refer to the pleadings in WA No. 937 of 2014 for deciding both the Writ Appeals.

3. The Writ Petitions were filed by the respondents to the appeal praying for quashing the decision of the State Bank of Travancore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') refusing their claim of grant of pensionary benefits consequent to their retirement under the State Bank of Travancore Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001.

4. Facts of the case briefly noted are: The respondents (who shall be hereinafter referred to as the Writ Petitioners) were employees of the Bank. The Bank issued a Scheme, viz., State Bank of Travancore Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme, 2001') inviting employees of the Bank who have put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31st January, 2001 to apply for voluntary retirement. Scheme, 2001 detailed various benefits which were to enure on acceptance of voluntary retirement. Scheme, 2001 contemplated that those employees whose voluntary retirement applications under Scheme, 2001 are accepted shall be retired on 31/03/2001. All the petitioners who have completed 15 years of service submitted applications for voluntary retirement under Scheme, 2001. Applications of the petitioners were accepted and they were retired from service with effect from 31/03/2001. The petitioners were not granted pensionary benefits on the premise that since the petitioners have not completed 20 years of qualifying service as per the State Bank of Travancore (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation, 1995') they are not entitled for pensionary benefits. Petitioners approached this Court which directed the Bank to consider amendment of Regulation, 1995 but no amendment was made to Regulation, 1995. Consequently, pension was never sanctioned to the petitioners. A bipartite settlement dated 27/04/2010 took place between the Indian Banks Association on behalf of the Management and their workmen represented by the All India Bank Employees' Association under S.2(3) and S.18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . To the said settlement, the State Bank of India as well as the Bank were parties. Under the settlement it was agreed that those employees who ceased to be in service on or after 26/03/1996 in the case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India on account of voluntary retirement from service under the special retirement scheme after rendering a minimum period of 15 years shall be eligible to exercise their option to join the pension scheme. Petitioners, in pursuance of the bipartite settlement again represented to the Bank to grant them pension. The Bank in the meantime issued a Circular dated 17/09/2010 in purported exercise of the bipartite settlement laying down the eligibility. In the eligibility criteria the Circular again mentioned that those employees who ceased to be in service on or after 26/03/1996 on account of voluntary retirement under Scheme, 2001 after rendering service for a minimum period of 20 years shall be entitled to give option for joining the pension scheme. Petitioners' representation seeking pension was again turned down and letters were issued to all the petitioners in September, 2012 informing them that in view of Regulation 29(2) of