Heard Sri J.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava , learned counsel for the respondents.
The factual matrix of the present case are that the petitioner served in the Air Force from 1963 to 1984. In the year 1984, certain posts of Cashier- cum-Clerk was fallen vacant in the State Bank of India as such the petitioner submitted his candidature for the same, called for interview, passed successfully so by order dated 17.8.1984 appointed on probation on the said post, subsequently, by order dated 2.3.1985 , confirmed.
On 30.12.2000 (Annexure no.2 ) a scheme was introduced in the bank known as State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme ( hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme'). In response to the said scheme, petitioner submitted his application opting for VRS, accepted with effect from 30.3.2001, thus he has been given provident funds, encashment of leave and other benefits as per terms and condition of the above said scheme.
Thereafter , petitioner has put foreword his case for payment of pension on the ground that he has completed sixteen and half years service in the bank and at the time of retirement he was 57 years, so he was entitled for pension forwarded by Regional Office Kanpur to Local Head Office at Lucknow on 9.6.2001 and by order dated 14.6.2001 ( Annexure no.5) the Circle Development Officer rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of the amended Rules 22(i) (a) of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules ( hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). Accordingly, the Branch Manager , State Bank of India, Chakeri Branch, Kanpur (from where the petitioner has voluntarily retired) , passed an order dated 27.6.2001 ( Annexure no.6) inter alia stating therein that as per the advice given by PPG Department Local Head Office that in terms of amended rule NO. 22(i) (a) of the Rules , petitioner was not eligible for pension.
Aggrieved by the above said fact, petitioner submitted a representation dated 28.6.2001 ( Anneuxre no. 7) to the General Manager,State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Lucknow ,rejected by means of order dated 27.9.2001 ( Annexur no.8) .
Sri J.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 14.6.2001 ( Annexure no.5), 27.6.2001 ( Annexure no.6) and 27.9.2001 ( Annexure no.8) submits that the impugned action on the part of the Bank Authorities thereby rejecting the petitioner's case for giving pension is an action wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature as the opposite parties have wrongly disallowed the pension to him on the ground that he is not entitle to the same as per rule 22(i)(a) of the Rules; because once the VRS was accepted by the Bank Authorities, opted by the petitioner under voluntary retirement scheme lunched by the Bank itself and at the relevant point of time, petitioner had served for a period of sixteen and half years in the bank and was of 57 years of age, so in view of the circular dated 30.6.1997 which provides that a person who has completed ten years of service upto 58 years of age, is entitled for pension, thus, the opposite party could not deviate from their assurance, so, the impugned orders passed by opposite parties thereby dis- entitling the petitioner from pension, is an action wholly illegal and arbitrary in nature thus, violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India liable to be set aside and the petitioner has a right to get pension as the opposite parties are under an obligation to pay the same to him. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the following judgements:-
1. State Bank of India Vs. Kannaiah and others,,2005(3) ESC (SC) 455.
2.Bank of India and another Vs. K. Mohandas and others (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 313
3.Ram Newal Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2010 (28) LCD 1556.
In rebuttal , Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent submits that State Bank of India has farmed its Rules relating to pension which are known as State Bank of India , Employee Pension Fund Rules . Rule 22(i) (a) of the said Rules was amended by the Bank and Circulated vide L.H.O. Letter No. CDO:IR:23 OF 1997-98 dated 30.6.1997. The said SBI Employees Pension Fund Amended Rules provides that a member shall be entitled to pension under these rules on retirement from the Bank's service after having completed 20 years of pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of 50 years or if he is in the service of the bank on or after 1.11.1993 after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of 58 years .
Further, it is submitted that Rule 22(1) of the State Bank of India Employee Pension Fund Rules was subsequently amended and approved by the Central Board of the Bank in its meeting held on 30.1.2001. The amendment to the Rules has been notified under the Gazette of India ( Part III Section 13) dated 31.3.2001 and the trustees of the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund have in its meeting on 30.10.2001, adopted the amended rules. These amendments are applicable on the petitioner in respect to the matter regarding payment of pension.
Thus, in brief, Sri G.K. Srivastava learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per subsequent amendment in Rule 22(1) of the State Bank of India Employee Pension Fund Rules, an employee shall be entitled to pension under these rules on retiring from the bank's service:-
(a) After having competed twenty years, pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 1.11.1993, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.5.1998, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty 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 approved 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.
In view of the above said fact, learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner is not entitled for any pension as his case has rightly been rejected by the authorities of the bank and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. In support of his arguments , he placed reliance on the following judgments:-
(a) Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India , Visakhapatnam ( A.P.) and others, (1997) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 256,
(b) Bank of Baroda and others Vs. Ganpat Singh Deora (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases , 217
(c) V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay and another (1998) 8 Supreme Court Cases, 30.
(d) United Bank of India Vs.Pijush Kanti Nandy and others (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases , 605.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Thus, the only question which is to be considered and decided as per the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties that whether the petitioner is entitled for pension as per Rules 22 of the Rules or not? The relevant portion of the said rule is reproduced as under :-
"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 he 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 approved 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.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju ( Supra) has considered the said Rules and held as under:-
" We cannot accept the said contention as correct. Clause 22(i) (c ) envisages only that after completing 20 years of pensionable service, if an incumbent retired at his request in writing and was permitted to retire , he would be entitled to pension. In other words, for voluntary retirement, on completion of 20 years of pensionable service, clause (c) of Rule 22(1) gets attracted . It does not apply to an officer who was removed from service for misconduct. Under these circumstances, the High Court has not committed any error of law warranting interference. Merely because , on a wrong advice, another employee was given pension after removal from service, the same cannot be made a ground under Article 14 to perpetuate the same mistake. So Article 14 does not apply and no discrimination arises."
Again the said Rules 22(i) of the Rules has come up for consideration before their Lordship of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of V. Kasturi ( supra) and in para 12 and 13 it has been held as under:-
"On a close look of the relevant provisions of the Rules in is not possible to agree with this contention. The appellant, in order to earn pension under rule 22(1)sub-clause (c) as amended in 1986 has to satisfy the following twin conditions:
In the case of State Bank of India Vs. L. Kannaiah ( supra) pension to the employee has been denied on the ground that the total service in the State Bank of India is less then 20 years when they retired at the age 60 years while doing so the authorities have not taken into consideration the services rendered by the employees initially in the Imperial Bank prior to their absorption in the State Bank of India on the said fact Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that they are entitled for pension taking into consideration the service rendered by them in the Imperial Bank as such the facts of the said case are different from the facts of the present case, so the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on the basis of said judgement in the instant matter. Further , so for as the law as laid down in the case of K.Mohandas (Supra) and Ram Newal ( Supra) the same are also not applicable in the instant matter , in the case of Ram Newal( Supra) , this Court in para-13 has held as under:-
" These provisions of law clearly entitles the petitioner to be paid pensionary benefits counting the period of the petitioner as full complete ten years. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner should be given benefit of complete ten years regular service in equity as well as in law . The deficiency of merely nine days in counting his regular service be waived of. Consequently , the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to allowed the pensionary benefits to the petitioner considering him to have completed ten years of regular service in the total twenty nine years of service and pay him pension regularly from the date of his superannuation."
Accordingly the petitioner in the instant case cannot derive any benefit from the law as laid down in the case of K. Mohandas and others ( supra) and in the case of Ram Newal ( supra) because in the present case the petitioner has opted for VRS, accepted as per scheme introduced by the Bank known as 'State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme ' and at that time he had rendered sixteen and half years of service and was of 57 years of age, thus, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit and scope of the Rule 22 of the Rules which provide for the eligibility criteria to get pension in the State Bank of India when the said rule has already been upheld by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju ( Supra) and in the case of V. Kasturi (supra). So, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders under challenge in the present writ petition No other point has been argued or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner .
Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed as such.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.3.2012 dk/