Summary
A former clerk of the State Bank of India was held not entitled to pension. Under Rules 20 and 7 of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955, pensionable service runs from confirmation, which gave him less than twenty years. He had not reached fifty, so Rule 22(i)(a) did not apply. Rule 22(i)(c) did not apply because his service ended by voluntary abandonment, not voluntary retirement.
Issues
- Whether the appellant was entitled to pension under the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955.
- Whether the appellant satisfied Rule 22(i)(c), including whether his cessation of service was voluntary retirement or voluntary abandonment.
- Whether the appellant satisfied Rule 22(i)(a).
Provisions considered
- Rule 22(i)(c), State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955Requires twenty years' pensionable service and retirement at the employee's written request; the appellant had less than twenty years' pensionable service and his service ended by abandonment, not voluntary retirement, so the rule did not apply. (¶¶ 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 32)
- Rule 22(i)(a), State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955Requires twenty years' pensionable service and attainment of the age of fifty; the appellant met neither condition. (¶¶ 19, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Rule 20 read with Rule 7, State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955Service for pension is reckoned from the date of admission to the Fund, and a permanent employee becomes a member from the date of confirmation, so the probation period was excluded. (¶¶ 20, 24)
- Section 33C(2), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The Labour Court and High Court had dismissed the claim as not maintainable because the entitlement was disputed and not a pre-existing right; the Supreme Court chose to decide the case on merits. (¶ 17)
Held
- Although the lower fora dismissed the claim under Section 33C(2) as not maintainable, the Court examined the pension claim on merits. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Under Rule 20 read with Rule 7, pensionable service is counted from admission to the Fund, which begins on confirmation in service. Counted from confirmation, the appellant's service was 19 years, 9 months and 25 days, less than twenty years. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- Rule 22(i)(c) did not apply because the appellant did not retire voluntarily. After a long unauthorised absence and notices calling on him to report, his services were declared to have been voluntarily abandoned. Radhey Shyam Pandey was distinguishable because it concerned employees who undisputedly retired under a recognised VRS. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Rule 22(i)(a) did not apply because the appellant had neither twenty years' service nor the age of fifty when his service ended. Even counting the probation period, as Rugmini Ganesh was cited to support, he would fail the age condition. (¶¶ 30, 31)
Result
Appeal dismissed.