Judgment:
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner wants quashing of the letter dated 20.12.2007, which has been communicated by the Assistant General Manager (PPG), State Bank of India, which is contained in Annexure-4. By virtue of this communication the petitioner has been told that in terms of the State Bank of India Pension Regulation Clause 22(i)(a) and 22(i)(d) only such employees can be granted pension who have completed 20 years of pensionable service and have completed 50 years of age or 10 years of pensionable service with 58 years of age. The petitioner's case was not found within the parameters of the Rule/Regulation, therefore, he has been denied the benefit of pension.
3. Petitioner was removed from service on 7.6.2000 after holding a departmental enquiry. Initial order came to be challenged before the High Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application holding that the writ was devoid of merit. However, in the said decision contained in Annexure-1 there is something to indicate that the petitioner was not to be disentitled the benefit of past service. An appeal was filed against the said decision of the learned Single Judge which was also dismissed, affirming the order of the learned Single Judge.
4. Petitioner thereafter made a claim for release of his superannuation benefits. Other benefits were paid to the petitioner but pension has been denied on the ground that the petitioner did not qualify for grant of the same.
5. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the order contained in Annexure-1 the stand of the respondents was that removal from service will not disentitle the petitioner from claiming the benefit of past service. That was one of the grounds by which the learned Single Judge held that the punishment order was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Once the respondents have taken a stand that they shall not deny the benefit of past service to the petitioner, the petitioner would be entitled to pension as well.
6. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the observations of the Court has to be read in the light of the prevalent rules which govern such employees of the State Bank of India. If the petitioner qualified or his case came within the ambit of the rule he could have been given the benefit of pension but his case does not fall within the ambit of the rule as it stands. The rule has undergone a change in the year 1997 and the same has been brought on record as Annxure-3 to the writ application. Prior to the amendment Rule 22(i)(a) read as under:
A member shall be entitled to pension under these rules, on retiring from Bank's service after having completed 20 years of pensionable service provided that he has also attained the age of 50 years.
After amendment following words were added after the said provision in Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Rules:
or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 01.11.1993 after having completed lo years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of 58 years.
In other words, Rule 22(i)(a) stipulates eligibility for pension as under:
(i) 20 years of service and 50 years of age.
(ii) 10 years of service and 58 years of age if an employee is in the service on or after 1.11.1993.
7. In other words, to become eligible for pension as per the new amended rules an employee must have put in 20 years of service and become 50 years of age or 10 years of service and 58 years of age i.e. after 1.11.1993.
8. In the present case, the petitioner was of 53 years of age when he was removed from service but he had put in only 15 years and 4 months in service. In other words, since he had not completed 20 years of service despite being 50 years of age or 10 years of service and 58 years of age, he cannot be given the benefit of pension. All other dues like gratuity, provident fund etc. have been settled.
9. The next limb of the argument of the petitioner was that the petitioner was an ex-serviceman and he should be given the benefit of the same for the past service rendered by him. If that is taken into consideration then he would have completed 20 years of service and this would entitle him to payment of pensionary benefits.
11. The stand of the respondents to such arguments is that the past service rendered by an ex-serviceman will not be counted for the benefit of payment of pension in terms of the circular and decision taken by the Bank. Basis is that ex-serviceman continue to draw the Defence Pension after reemployment and, therefore, their past service cannot be included or added as qualifying service for purpose of calculation of pension in the Bank. They may be included in the pension scheme after the reemployment but only from the time of their appointment under the Bank.
12. Having heard counsel for the parties and taking their rival stands into consideration, it goes without saying that the right of an employee to beget pension is based on the service conditions and the rules framed there under. There is a regulation which governs the State Bank of India's employees so far as pension is concerned the rule has been enacted under the purported exercise of power granted under Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act. The pension rules have been circulated after due consultation and an amendment has come to be made in the year 1997. The case of the petitioner will be covered by the said rule and merely because a statement was made before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner would be entitled to benefit of past service even after removal does not mean that the said order will have the overriding effect over the, rules and regulations which govern the grant of such pensions. The petitioner does not come within the ambit of the rule, which has been demonstrated by the respondents in the counter affidavit and has been taken note of in the earlier part of the order. No direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner nor can the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 be interfered with.
13. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed.