REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.              OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.26879 of 2005)

United Bank of India … Appellant

Versus

Pijush Kanti Nandy & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The Service Conditions of the employees of United Bank of India are  

governed by United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (for  

short, ‘the Regulations).   

Regulation 19 of the Regulations reads as under:

“19.(1)  The  age  of  retirement  of  an  officer  employee shall be as determined by the Board in

accordance  with  the  guidelines  issued  by  the  Government from time to time—

Provided  that  the  Bank  may,  at  its  discretion, on review by the Special Committee as  provided hereinafter in sub-regulation (2) retire an  officer  employee  on  or  at  any  time  after  the  completion of 55 years of age or on or at any time  after the completion of 30 years of total service as  an  officer  employee  or  otherwise,  whichever  is  earlier;

Provided  further  that  before  retiring  an  officer  employee, at least three months’ notice in writing  or  an  amount  equivalent  to  three  months’  substantive  salary/pay  and  allowances,  shall  be  given to such officer employee;

Provided also that nothing in this regulation shall  be deemed to preclude an officer employee from  retiring earlier pursuant to the option exercised by  him in accordance with the rules in the Bank.

Explanation :

An officer employee will retire on the last day of  the  month  in  which  he  completes  his  age  of  retirement.

(2) The Bank shall constitute a Special Committee,  consisting  of  not  less  than  three  members,  to  review,  whether  an  officer  employee  should  be  retired in accordance with the first proviso to this  regulation.   Such Committee  shall,  from time to  time, review the case of each officer employee and  no  order  of  retirement  shall  be  made  unless  the  Special Committee recommends in writing to the  Competent Authority the retirement of the officer  employee.”

2

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.  Respondent No.1 herein  

joined his services in the appellant bank as MMG Scale-II.  On or about  

13.2.1989, he sought voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 19 of the  

Regulations.   The Bank accepted his  offer  vide its  letter  dated 8.5.1989.  

Respondent No.1 was allowed to take voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.5.1989.  

4. On  or  about  1.11.1993,  The  United  Bank  of  India  (Employees)  

Pension Regulations, 1993 were introduced for employees of the appellant-

Bank.  Option from the employees retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.11.1993  

was sought for by the appellant on or before 30.7.1994.  However, the last  

date for receiving such option was extended till 30.9.1994 vide a circular  

dated 30.9.1994.

On or about 1.9.2001, the respondent No.1 filed an application for  

exercising  his  option  for  pension.   The  appellant,  vide  its  letter  dated  

10.10.2001 informed him that he was not entitled to give any option for the  

said purpose.   

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said letter, the respondent filed  

a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, which was  

marked as W.P. No.490 of 2002, praying therein for the following reliefs:

3

“a) A  writ  in  the  nature  of  mandamus  commanding  the  respondents  and  each  of  them their men, servants, agents, and assigns  to act in accordance with the law and allow  Pension Benefits to the writ petitioner from  the  date  of  his  retirement  in  terms  of  the  United Bank of India (Employees) Pension  Regulation 1995;

b) A  writ  in  the  nature  of  mandamus  commanding the respondents and especially  the respondent Nos1, 2 and 3 to forthwith  cancel  and/or  rescind  the  letter  dated  10th  October, 2001 being Annexure ‘P-9’ hereto;

(c) Writ  in  the  nature  of  Prohibition  directing  and commanding the respondents and each  of  them  to  desist  from  withholding  the  Pension Benefits to the petitioner;

(d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari  directing  and commanding the respondents and each  of  them  to  transmit  and  produce  all  the  records  relating  to  this  case  to  the  said  Hon’ble  Court  after  certifying the same to  that conscionable justice may be rendered;

e) An  order  of  injunction  restraining  the  respondents  and/or  each  of  them  their  servants,  men,  agents  &  assigns  from  withholding  and/or  continuing  to  withhold  the  pensionary  benefits  of  the  writ  petitioner;

f) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers above.”

Counter affidavit as also a supplementary counter affidavit to the writ  

petition were filed by the appellant.   

4

The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the  

High Court by his order dated 20.3.2003.  The appellant-Bank preferred an  

intra court  appeal thereagainst  which was also dismissed by the Division  

Bench by reason of the impugned judgment.

5. The appellant is, thus, before us.

6. The respondent voluntarily retired from the services of the Bank as far  

back as on 31.5.1989 as has been noticed by us hereinbefore.  He claimed  

the  benefit  of  pension  which  was  introduced  by  reason  of  a  Regulation  

known as United Bank of  India  (Employees)  Pension Regulations,  1995.  

The Regulations were published in the Official Gazette on 29.9.1995 and in  

terms of clause (2) of regulation 1, they were to come into force on the said  

date.   

7. A writ petition was filed before this Court.  This Court in its decision  

in  Bank of India v.  Indu Rajagopalan & Ors. [JT 2000 (10) SC 334] held  

that  the  benefit  of  the  said  Regulations  should  be  extended  to  those  

employees who have retired on or after 1.1.1986.  It is also not in dispute  

that the respondent as on the date of his retirement completed 17 years 10  

months and 17 days of actual service.    

5

8. The  core  question  which  arises  for  consideration  herein  is  as  to  

whether  having  regard  to  the  provisions  contained  in  clause  (5)  of  

Regulation 29 of the Regulations,  he would be entitled to the pensionary  

benefits.

Regulation 2(n) defines ‘employee’ to mean :

“ ‘employee’ means any person employed in the  service  of  the  Bank  on  full  time  work  on  permanent  basis  or  on  part-time  work  or  permanent basis on scale wages and who opts and  is  governed  by  these  regulations,  but  does  not  include a person employed either on contract basis  or daily wage basis or on consolidated wages.”

Regulation 2(w) defines ‘qualifying service’ as under :

“ ‘qualifying service’ means the service rendered  while on duty or otherwise which shall  be taken  into account for the purpose of pension under these  regulations.”

9. The  Regulations,  as  noticed  hereinbefore,  was  to  apply  to  the  

employees who were in service on or after the first day of January 1986 or  

who had retired before the first day of November 1993 and exercised the  

option in writing within the period prescribed therein.

6

Chapter IV of the Regulations provided for qualifying service.  We  

may notice Regulations 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 21 of the said Regulations  

which read as under :

“14. Qualifying  Service  –  Subject  to  the  other  conditions  contained  in  these  regulations,  an  employee  who  has  rendered  a  minimum  of  ten  years  of  service  in  the  Bank  on  the  date  of  his  retirement or the date on which he is deemed to  have retired shall qualify for pension

15.  Commencement  of  qualifying  service  –  Subject  to  the  provisions  contained  in  these  regulations,  qualifying  service  of  an  employee  shall commence from the date he takes charge of  the  post  to  which  he  is  first  appointed  on  a  permanent basis.

16. …

17. Counting  of  periods  spent  on  leave  –  All  leave during service in the Bank for which leave  salary is payable shall count as qualifying service;

Provided that  extraordinary leave on loss of  pay  shall not count as qualifying service except when  the  sanctioning  authority  has  directed  that  such  leave  not  exceeding  twelve  months  during  the  entire  service,  may  count  as  service  for  all  purposes including pension.

Broken period of service of less than one year – If  the  period  of  service  of  an  employee  includes  broken period of service less than one year, then if  such  broken  period  is  more  than  six  months,  it  shall  be  treated  as  one  year  and  if  such  broken  period is six months or less it shall be ignored.

7

19. Counting  of  period  spent  on  training  –  Period  spent  by  an  employee  on  training  in  the  Bank  immediately  before  his  appointment  shall  count as qualifying service.

20. …

21. Period of suspension – Period of suspension  of  an  employee  pending  enquiry  shall  count  for  qualifying  service  where,  on  conclusion  of  such  enquiry,  he  has  been  fully  exonerated  or  the  suspension is held to be wholly unjustified, and in  other  cases,  the  period  of  suspension  shall  not  count as qualifying service unless the Competent  Authority  passing  the  orders  under  the  Service  Regulations or Discipline and Appeal regulations  or  Settlements  governing  such  cases  expressly  declares  at  the  time  that  it  shall  count  to  such  extent as such authority may declare.”

10. In  the  aforementioned  backdrop,  we  may  notice  the  provisions  

contained  in  Chapter  of  the  Regulations  titled  ‘Classes  of  Pension’.  

Regulation 28 provides for superannuation pension.  Pension on voluntary  

retirement is governed by Regulation 29; clause (1) whereof reads as under :

“Pension on Voluntary Retirement –

(1) On or after  1st day of  November,  1993,  at  any time after  an employee has completed  twenty years of qualifying service he may,  by  giving  notice  of  not  less  than  three  months  in  writing  to  the  appointing  authority, retire from service;

Provided  that  this  sub-regulation  shall  not  apply to an employee who is on deputation  

8

or on study leave abroad unless after having  been transferred or having returned to India  he has resumed charge of the post in India  and has served for a period of not less than  one year;

Provided  further  that  this  sub-regulation  shall  not  apply to an employee who seeks  retirement from service for being absorbed  permanently  in  an  autonomous  body  or  a  public  sector  undertaking  or  company  or  institution or body, whether incorporated or  not to which he is on deputation at the time  of seeking voluntary retirement;

Provided  that  this  sub-regulation  shall  not  apply to an employee who is deemed to have  retired  in  accordance  with  clause  (1)  of  regulation 2.”

Clause  (2)  of  Regulation  29  provides  for  acceptance  of  notice  of  

voluntary  retirement  by  the  appointing  authority.   Other  procedural  

provisions are contained in clauses (3) and (4).  Clause (5) of Regulation 29  

reads as under :

“(5) The  qualifying  service  of  an  employee  retiring  voluntarily  under  this  regulation  shall be increased by a period not exceeding  five years, subject to the condition that the  total  qualifying  service  rendered  by  such  employee  shall  not  in  any  case  exceed  thirty-three years and it  does not  take him  beyond the date of superannuation.”

9

11. The  learned  Single  Judge  as  also  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  

Court on construction of the provisions of clause (5) of Regulation 29 was of  

the opinion that the qualifying service could be extended by a period of five  

years having regard to the definition thereof which not only takes within its  

umbrage the  service  rendered while  on duty but  also  service  ‘otherwise’  

rendered.

12. The meaning  of  the  word  ‘otherwise’  as  given  in  ‘Advanced Law  

Lexicon’ (3rd Edn – 2005) is as under :

“By  other  like  means;  contrarily;  different  from  that to which it relates;  in a different manner; in  another;  in  any  other  way;  differently  in  other  respects  in  different  respects;  in  some other  like  capacity.”

[See  R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd. v.  Commissioner  of Income Tax  

[2008 (8) SCALE 223].

As a general rule, ‘otherwise’, when following an enumeration, should  

receive  an  ejusdem  generis interpretation  (per  CLEASBY,  B.  Monck  v.  

Hilton 46 LJMC 167.  The words ‘or otherwise’, in law, when used as a  

general  phrase  following  an  enumeration  of  particulars,  are  commonly  

interpreted in a restricted sense,  as referring to such other matters as are  

kindred to the classes before mentioned, (Cent. Dict.)”

10

13. Contention of Mr. Mehta is that the said word only takes within its  

purview  those  classes  of  cases  which  are  noticed  in  Chapter  IV  of  the  

Regulations and not for the purpose of extending the period of qualifying  

service.   We agree.   Service  may  not  be  actually  rendered  but  must  be  

otherwise rendered.  This presupposes that the relationship of employer and  

employee must continue at all relevant times.

14. Mr. Mukherjee relied upon a recent decision in  Bank of Baroda &  

Ors. v. Ganpat Singh Deora [(2009) 1 SCALE 168] wherein this Court was  

considering the provisions of the Pension of Regulations of Bank of Baroda  

providing for pay-ability of pension to an employee who as on 31.01.2001,  

would have completed a minimum of 15 years of service or who could be  

completing 40 years of age.  The respondent therein at that point of time  

merely had completed 13 years of service.  Despite that, his application for  

voluntary retirement was accepted.  When, however, he had sought for the  

benefits applicable to him under the Pension Scheme in addition to other  

retiral benefits, the same was not acceded to.  It was in the aforementioned  

factual matrix, the interpretation of Regulation 14, 28 and 29 came up for  

consideration.   An  argument  was  advanced  therein  that  the  terms  and  

conditions of the voluntary retirement scheme were different from voluntary  

retirement  contemplated  under  Regulation  29,  as  in  such  an  event,  

11

Regulation 14 will apply containing the general conditions.  That argument  

was rejected, stating :

“18. However, we are inclined to agree with Ms.  Bhati  that  Regulation  29  does  not  contemplate  voluntary  retirement  under  the  Voluntary  Retirement  Scheme  and  applies  only  to  such  employees who themselves wish to retire de hors  any Scheme of Voluntary Retirement, after having  completed 15 years  of  qualifying  service for the  said purpose. There is a distinct difference between  the  two  situations  and  Regulation  29  would  not  cover the case of an employee opting to retire on  the basis of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

19.  Furthermore,  Regulation  2  of  the  Voluntary  Retirement  Scheme,  2001,  of  the  appellant-Bank  merely prescribes a period of qualifying service for  an employee to be eligible to apply for voluntary  retirement. On the other hand, Regulations 14 and  29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, relate to the  period of qualifying service for pension under the  said Regulations, in two different situations. While  Regulation 14 provides that in order to be eligible  for pension an employee would have to render a  minimum  of  10  years  service,  Regulation  29  is  applicable  to  the  employees  choosing  to  retire  from service pre- maturely,  and in their  case the  period of qualifying service would be 15 years.”

We are not concerned with such a case.   

We must also notice that Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing  

on behalf of the respondent contended that if Regulation 29 applies, there is  

no reason as to why clause (5) thereof shall not apply.   

12

15. However, in a subsequent decision of this Court in  Bank of India &  

Anr. v. K. Mohandas & Ors. [2009 (4) SCALE 576].  In that case also Bank  

of India offered a voluntary retirement scheme a similar question had come  

up for consideration.  Clause (5) of Regulation 29 came up for consideration  

therein although the case stricto sensu was concerned with the voluntary  

retirement  scheme  itself.   The  High  Court,  however,  noticed  that  two  

different views expressed by the Kerala High Court in paragraph 19 of the  

judgment.  Upon noticing the rival contentions of the parties, the following  

was formulated :

“The  principal  question  that  falls  for  our  determination is:  whether  the  employees  (having  completed  20  years  of  service)  of  these  banks  (Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Punjab &  Sind Bank, Union Bank of India and United Bank  of India) who had opted for voluntary retirement  under  VRS 2000 are  entitled  to  addition  of  five  years of notional service in calculating the length  of service for the purpose of the said Scheme as  per  Regulation  29(5)  of  Pension  Regulations,  1995?”

The  High  Court  rejected  his  submission  that  if  the  Regulations  

including  clause  (5)  of  Regulation  29  is  applied  for  the  purposed  of  

voluntary  retirement  scheme,  it  would  create  an  anomalous  situation  

inasmuch as two different class of employees for the purpose of granting  

13

pension would be created.  The Court distinguished the  Bank of Baroda’s  

case (supra), opining that the same was rendered in the facts thereof, stating:

“49. It is true that the controversy in the case of  Bank of Baroda arose out of the same voluntary  retirement scheme with which we are concerned in  this  group  of  appeals.  However,  there  is  vital  factual  difference  in  that  case  and this  group of  appeals.  Pertinently  that  was  a  case  where  the  employee had completed only 13 years of service  (not even 15 years of service much less 20 years'  service) although he completed 40 years of age at  the time he offered for voluntary retirement. The  employee's  application  therein  for  voluntary  retirement  was  accepted  by  the  Bank  of  Baroda  and he was paid all retiral benefits. However, his  request for grant of pension in addition to the other  retiral benefits was not acceded to by the bank. It  was  so  because  he  had  not  completed  even  15  years of service. The employee pursued industrial  adjudicatory process for redressal of his grievance  in respect of non-grant of pension by the bank. The  employee's  claim  was  opposed  by  the  Bank  of  Baroda contending that in terms of Regulations 14,  28 and 29 of the Pension Regulations,  1995, the  employee  was  not  entitled  to  pension.  The  observations  made  by  this  Court  in  Bank  of   Baroda which have been quoted above and relied  upon by the banks in support of their contention  have  to  be  understood  in  the  factual  backdrop  namely, that the employee had completed only 13  years  of  service  and,  was  not  eligible  for  the  pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995 and  for  the  benefit  of  addition  of  five  years  to  qualifying  service  under  Regulation  29(5),  an  employee  must  have  completed  20  years  of  service. The question therein was not identical in  form with  the  question  here  to  be  decided.  The  

14

following  observations  in  paragraph  11  of  the  report in Bank of Baroda are significant:

...since both the Tribunal as well as the High  Court appear not to have considered or taken  note of the fact that the respondent was not  eligible for pension as he had not completed  15 years of qualifying service....

50. The decision of this Court in  Bank of Baroda  is,  thus,  clearly  distinguishable  as  the  employee  therein had not completed qualifying service much  less 20 years of service for being eligible to the  weightage under Regulation 29(5) and cannot be  applied  to  the  present  controversy  nor  does  that  matter  decide the question here to be decided in  the present group of matters.”

It was laid down :

“53.  We hold,  as it  must  be,  that  the employees  who had completed 20 years of service and were  pension  optees  and  offered  voluntary  retirement  under VRS 2000 and whose offers were accepted  by the banks are entitled to addition of five years  of  notional  service  in  calculating  the  length  of  service  for  the  purposes  of  that  Scheme  as  per  Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995.  The contrary view expressed by some of the High  Courts do not lay down the correct legal position.”

We respectfully agree with the view expressed therein.

16. What is qualifying service has been explained in  Union of India &  

Anr. v. Bashirbhai R. Khilji [(2007) 6 SCC 16], wherein this Court held that  

15

the  respondent  being  constable  in  the  Central  Reserve  Police  Force,  the  

Central  Civil  Services  (Pension)  Rules,  1972  are  applicable.   Rule  49  

stipulates that the minimum qualifying service of ten years is required for  

extending the pension benefit.  It was stated that ‘for grant of any kind of  

pension, one has to put in the minimum of ten years of qualifying service’.  

In that case, Respondent was appointed as armed constable in central  

reserve  police  force.  He  suffered  from  pyrogenic  meningitis  and  

neurosensory defines while on duty. He was invalidated from service after  

he was declared unfit for duty. Respondent request for invalid pension was  

rejected on the ground that he had not completed 10 years of service.  The  

Division Bench of High Court held that the respondent was entitled to the  

invalid pension since his invalidity was 100% and the condition of ten years  

of qualifying service could not invoked so as to deny the respondent invalid  

pension.

17. We  may  notice  that  this  Court  in  Indian  Bank  &  Anr. v.  N.  

Venkatramani [(2007) 10 SCC 609], held :

“13. It may be true that various provisions of the  Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19,  23, etc. provided for qualifying service. Regulation  18 is not controlled by any of the said provisions.  It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It  only  provides  for  a  rule  of  measurement.  An  

16

employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was entitled to  pension provided he has completed the specified  period of  service.  How such a  period of  service  would be computed is a matter which is governed  by the statute. It is one thing to say that a statute  provides  for  completion  of  fifteen  years  of  minimum service, but if a provision provides for  measurement of the period, the same cannot be lost  sight  of.  Provision of  the  Regulations  which are  beneficial  in  nature,  in  our  opinion,  should  be  construed liberally.”

In that case, the question arose as to how the lack in period of service  

of less than one year shall be construed.  This Court held that Regulation 18  

was not controlled by Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23 etc. as it provided for a  

Rule of Measurement.  

It,  is however,  trite that even a beneficial legislation should not be  

extended to  such an  extent  whereby  it  would  take  into  within  its  fold  a  

situation which was not contemplated under the statute.

18. Could the period of service computed by including a period of five  

years as provided for in clause (5) of Regulation 29 is the question.  In our  

opinion, it was not.  Definition of ‘qualifying service’ is restrictive in nature.  

It uses the word ‘means’ and not ‘includes’ or ‘means and includes’.  Thus,  

the construction of ‘qualifying service’ must ordinarily be kept confined to  

the service rendered while on duty.  He may be in service even otherwise  

17

although not rendering any duty.  Those exigencies of situation are covered  

by the other types of cases which would come within the purview thereof.  A  

person who is not  in service cannot  be said to be entitled to the benefit  

thereof.  The term ‘otherwise’ should be read  ejusdem generis.  The term  

‘otherwise’ in the context of the ‘Regulations’ should be construed so that it  

can become meaningful one.  For the said purpose, the employee concerned  

was required to be in service.  It is not possible to hold in absence of any  

express words that the eligibility criteria laid down in the Regulations for  

obtaining  the  benefit  of  pension,  i.e.,  the  qualifying  service  should  be  

construed  in  such a  manner  that  a  person even not  in  service  would  be  

deemed to be in service.  The statute does not raise a legal fiction.  A strict  

construction of the term “qualifying service” therefor, in our opinion, would  

not be appropriate.   

In Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) & Anr.  

[(1989) 2 SCC 458], the Supreme Court while discussing the definition of  

‘manufacture’ under section 2(f) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944  

whether the relevant process fall within ‘any other process" thereby within  

the  provision  of  section  2(f)(v)  the  Court  looked at  the  meaning of  ‘the  

expression  ejus-dem-generis...’  which  means  of  the  same  kind  or  

nature'...signifies  a  principle  of  construction  whereby  words  in  a  statute  

18

which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited  

words are,  by implication,  given a restricted operation and are limited to  

matters of the same class or genus as preceding them. If a list or string or  

family  of  genus-describing  terms  is  followed  by  wider  or  residuary  or  

sweeping-up words, then the verbal context and the linguistic implications  

of the preceding words limit the scope of such words.

The Court also discussed various other texts while looking at the term.  

In ‘Statutory Interpretation’ Rupert Cross says:

“...The draftsman must be taken to have inserted  the general words in case something which ought  to  have  been  included  among  the  specifically  enumerated items had been omitted...”

The principle underlying this approach to statutory construction is that  

the  subsequent  general  words  were  only  intended  to  guard  against  some  

accidental omission in the objects of the kind mentioned earlier and were not  

intended  to  extend  to  objects  of  a  wholly  different  kind.  This  is  a  

presumption and operates unless there is some contrary indication. But the  

preceding words or expressions of restricted meaning must be susceptible of  

the import that they represent  a class.  If  no class can be found,  ejusdem  

19

generis rule is not attracted and such broad construction as the subsequent  

words may admit will be favoured. As a learned author puts it:

“...if a class can be found, but the specific words  exhaust the class, then rejection of the rule may be  favoured  because  its  adoption  would  make  the  general  words  unnecessary;  if  however,  the  specific  words  do  not  exhaust  the  class,  then  adoption of the rule may be favoured because its  rejection  would  make  the  specific  words  unnecessary.”

Cessation of  contract  of  service may be of  different  types,  i.e.,  by  

punishment or  by end of  contract.   It,  however,  does  not  take within  its  

purview an order of suspension as the same does not bring about a cessation.

19. In National Textile Corporation (M.P.) Limited v. M.R. Jadhav [(2008  

(7) SCC 29], this Court held:

“Subject,  of  course,  to  the  terms  “invitation  to  treat” as also those of the offer as envisaged under  the  Contract  Act,  an  offer  has  to  be  accepted.  Unless  an  offer  is  accepted,  a  binding  contract  does not come into being.  A voluntary retirement  scheme contemplates cessation of the relationship  of master and servant.  The rights and obligations  of  the  parties  thereto  shall  become  enforceable  only on completion of the contract.  Unless such a  stage is reached, no valid contract can be said to  have  come  into  force.   Acceptance  of  an  offer  must, therefore, be communicated.”

20

20. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in a case of this nature, clause  

(5) of Regulation 29 would be attracted only in a case where the concerned  

employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service.  Clause (5) of 29  

would be applicable for the purpose of granting a higher monetary benefit in  

the matter of computation of pension.  It does not provide for measurement  

of the period as was in the case of Indian Bank (supra).

21. For the reasons aforementioned,  the  impugned judgment cannot  be  

sustained, it is set aside accordingly.  The appeal is allowed.  However, in  

the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

.……………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

……………………..…J.     [Deepak Verma]

New Delhi; August 4, 2009

21