JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, the learned Counsel for the State Bank of India.
2. The petitioner is an Ex-Armyman and was appointed as a Security Guard in the State Bank of India on 11.5.1971. He was confirmed in the service in the bank on 11.11.1971. His date of birth as recorded in the Service Book is 16.10.1933 and, consequently on the date when he was confirmed in November 1971 he was over 38 years of age. Under the Rules framed by the bank, the age of retirement is 58 years. The petitioner retired on reaching the age of superannuation on 15.10.1991 but was granted two extension of service, w.e.f. 16.10.1991 to 15.10.1992 and from 16.10.1992 to 15.10.1993. In this manner, the petitioner contended that he had been in service for more than 20 years. The petitioner made a representation to the authority praying that he was entitled for the payment of the pension under the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 18.10.2003. Consequently, the present writ petition was filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted, that according to the Pension Rules framed by the bank, the cut of date for becoming a member of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund is 38 years coupled with the fact that an employee should have a total service of 20 years. The petitioner submits that on the date when he was appointed on 11th May, 1971, he had not crossed the age of 38 years and was, therefore, eligible to become a member of the Pension Fund, and that he had retired in 1993 and, accordingly, had put in almost 22 years of service. Therefore, he had completed more than the minimum service of 20 years as required tinder the Rules, and was therefore again qualified for receiving the pension under the Rules framed by the bank.
4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner seems to be attractive in the first blush, but upon a perusal of the relevant Rules, this Court finds that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
5. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, the State Bank Employees Pension Fund Rules were framed. Rules 7, 8 and 22 of the said Rules are relevant and are quoted herein below:
7. Save as provided in Rule 8, every permanent employee (including a permanent part-time employees 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 condition 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.
8. Save as provided in Rule 25, no employee shall be eligible to become a member of the fund-
(a) if he is a member of he Imperial Bank of India Employees' Pension and Guarantee Fund or if he is engaged in any country outside India and appointed for service in such country;
(b) if he is below 21 years of age;
(c) if he is over 38 years of age; or
(d) Whose service is specially declared by the Bank to be non-pensionable.
22. (i) A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the Bank's service--
(a) After having completed twenty years' pensionable service provided that the has attained the age of fifty years;
(b) after having completed twenty years' pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approval medical certificate or otherwise that he is incapacitated for further active service;
(c) After having completed twenty years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at his request in writing.
(d) After twenty five years' pensionable service.
6. Clause 11.1 of Chapter XI of the agreement between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation, the age of retirement of an employee has been prescribed, namely -
11.1 In supersession of paragraph 15.13 of the Desai Award, a workman shall normally retire on reaching the age of 58 years. The Bank will, however, grant to a workman who continues to be physically fit and efficient an extension of service upto 60 years of age, but service beyond 58 years of age will not be counted for any purpose connected with or in relation to pension.
7. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the age of the retirement of an employee is 58 years and that an extension of service beyond 58 years could not be counted for the purposes of pension. A perusal of Clauses 7 and 8 of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules indicates that an employee would be eligible for the pension provided he is below 38 years of age on the date when the said employee is confirmed in the service.
8. In view of the aforesaid Rules, the petitioner was confirmed in service on 11.11.1971 and at that moment of time he was over 38 years of age. Consequently, in view of Rule 7 of the said Rules, the petitioner having been confirmed on 11.7.1971 and being over 38 years of age as per Rule 8, was not eligible to become a member of the Pension Fund Rules and was not entitled for the grant of the pension.
9. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, in any case, he had completed 20 years of service and, therefore he was eligible for the pension as contemplated under Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules is also misconceived in view of Clause 11.1 of the agreement which stipulates that the period of extension of service would not be counted towards pension. The petitioner having reached the age of superannuation on 15.10.1991 had completed less than 20 years of service. The period of extension granted from 16.10.1991 to 15.10.1993 could not be counted in the total period of service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of pension .
10. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.