Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36436 of 2002 Petitioner :- Anand Swaroop Verma Respondent :- State Bank of India & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi,SC
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri B.B.Jauhari, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record.
2. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to entitlement of petitioner for pension. Petitioner was allowed to retire by accepting his application for voluntary retirement but he has not been found eligible for pension on the ground that he has not completed 20 years of service from the date of his confirmation.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he was appointed vide order dated 31.01.1984. The period of probation was six months. After completion of period of probation, petitioner was confirmed. He said that while computing 'qualifying service', period of probation cannot be excluded and if period of probation is included, petitioner completed twenty years of service and thus entitled for pension.
4. Learned counsel for Bank, however, submitted that under the rules, service counts for pension only from the date of confirmation and not earlier period. He placed reliance on Rule 7 of State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules (hereinafter referred to as "Rules"). The said rule reads as under :
"7. Save as provided in rule 8, every permanent employee (including a permanent part-time employee who is required by the Bank to work for more than six hours a week) in the service of the Bank who is entitled to pension benefits under the terms and conditions of his service shall become a member of the Fund from -
(a) the date from which he is confirmed in the service of the Bank, or
(b) the date from which he may be required to become a member of the Fund under the terms and conditions of his service."
5. It is clear from bare reading of aforesaid rule that period, which will qualify for pension benefits, would commence either from the date of confirmation or from the date an employee has been required to become a member of Funds under the terms and conditions of service.
6. There is no averment in the entire writ petition that he was required to become a member of the Fund on any date prior to the date of confirmation. Thus, as per Rules petitioner is not entitled for pension.
7. Completion of minimum period, as per the Rules, is necessary and mandatory and this has been so held by Apex Court while construing a pari materia provision relating to Indian Bank in Indian Bank & Anr. Vs. N.Venkatramani AIR 2007 SC 3159. Thus, denial of pension to petitioner on the ground that he did not complete qualifying service when computed from the date of confirmation as per rule 7(a) of the Rules, cannot be faulted with.
8. Counsel for the petitioner then argued that scheme of voluntary retirement was a special scheme. A person if seeks voluntary retirement is entitled for pension irrespective of rules otherwise provided but when questioned, learned counsel for petitioner could not place any provision under Voluntary Retirement Scheme which provides that even if an employee, seeking voluntary retirement, is not entitled for pension under the Rules, General Rules will be applicable and he would be paid pension.
9. In view thereof, no relief can be given to the petitioner.
10. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 20.12.2018 KA