MATHUR, J. - (1.) REPORTABLE 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. and 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. 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.
(3.) The factual matrix necessary to be noticed for adjudication of these appeals is as under:;