OS WP-1574 of 2017

1 915.1873.17 WP.
doc
ISM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1873 OF 2017
Rugmini Ganesh .....Petitioner

w/o Ganesh Raman Iyer
R/o A 402, Shreeji Milap,
Sector 40, Plot 52, Seawoods (West)
Nerul (West), Navi Mumbai 400706
V/s.
State Bank of India .....Respondent

Rep. By its Chairperson
Mumbai 400 020
Mr. Anil Bajaj for the Petitioner

Mr. Neel Helekar for respondent
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT &

NITIN W SAMBRE, JJ.
DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the
consent of the parties.
Digitally signed
Iresh by Iresh
Siddharam
Siddharam Mashal
Mashal Date: 2018.10.08
18:01:33 +0530
2 915.1873.17 WP.doc
2 The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction
that she be granted pension. There can be no dispute about the
facct that the Petitioner was appointed as a clerk on 01/09/1980 on
probation. The Petitioner was thereafter confirmed on 01/03/1981.
It seems that she took voluntary retirement under the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme (VRS) on 31/03/2001. There is no dispute about
the fact that the Petitioner is not denied pension on the ground that
she has taken the benefit of VRS. The denial of pension is on the
touchstone of Rule 22 of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension
Fund Rules. The said Rule reads thus:
“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 or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after
1.11.93, after having completed ten years pensionable
service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight
years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after
22.05.1998, after having completed ten years pensionable
service provided or he has attained the age of sixty years.
3 915.1873.17 WP.doc
(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”.
(ii) …........
(iii) ….......
3 The reading of the said Rule discloses that the person is
entitled to pension after completing 20 years of service and if he has
attained 50 years or if he is in service of the bank on or after having
completed 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 1.11.93, after having completed ten years pensionable

4 915.1873.17 WP.doc
service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if
he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.05.1998, after having
completed ten years pensionable service provided or he has attained
the age of sixty years. The said Rule had come up for consideration
in a case which can be said to be identical to the case in hand before
the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 1483 of
2014. The Judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
is dated 16/02/2015.
4 In the context of relief sought in the present petition, the
conclusion of the Division Bench insofar as the pensionable service
is concerned is contained in paragraph 14 of the said Judgment
which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced hereinunder:
14. Thus, pensionable service of the Petitioner is to be

reckoned from the date of his initial appointment on
23.02.1987. Computing the period from that day, the writ
Petitioner had completed more than 20 years pensionable
service as required under Rule 22 (i) of the SBI Rules, as on
the day his request for Exit Option was accepted i.e., on
15.06.2007.
5 915.1873.17 WP.doc
5 Hence, the Division Bench of Madras High Court considering
the seniority rules which postulate the seniority has to be counted
from the date of initial appointment, held that the pensionable
service is to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment.
6 In the case of the Petitioner above named that is precisely not
been done and that the period in which the Petitioner was on
probation has been discounted, resulting in the Petitioner falling
short of the qualifying service of 20 years. There is no dispute about
the fact that the Petitioner was appointed on 01/09/1980 and the
Petitioner took VRS on 31/03/2001 which is more than 20 years of
service and hence, even if the period of leave of loss which is a
period of 1 month and 8 days is deducted, the Petitioner would still
fulfill the qualifying service of 20 years. The above petition is
therefore, required to be allowed. We accordingly direct the
Respondent no. 1 to pay pension to the Petitioner, calculated from
the date of her retirement i.e. from 31/03/2001. Arrears of pension

6 915.1873.17 WP.doc
be paid within 12 weeks from the date and the Respondent no. 1
would thereafter pay pension from month to month as per Rules.
7 The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
8 Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms with
parties to bear their respective costs.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] [R. M. SAVANT, J.]

OS WP-1574 of 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OS WP-1574 of 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OS WP-1574 of 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 915.1873.17 WP.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1873 OF 2017

Rugmini Ganesh .....Petitioner

State Bank of India .....Respondent

Mr. Anil Bajaj for the Petitioner

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT &

DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2018.

Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

consent of the parties.

2 The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction

that she be granted pension. There can be no dispute about the

facct that the Petitioner was appointed as a clerk on 01/09/1980 on

probation. The Petitioner was thereafter confirmed on 01/03/1981.

It seems that she took voluntary retirement under the Voluntary

Retirement Scheme (VRS) on 31/03/2001. There is no dispute about

touchstone of Rule 22 of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension

Fund Rules. The said Rule reads thus:

“22. (i) A member shall be entitled to a pension under these

(a) After having completed twenty years'

(b) After having completed twenty years'

(c) After having completed twenty years

(d) After twenty five years' pensionable service”.

3 The reading of the said Rule discloses that the person is

entitled to pension after completing 20 years of service and if he has

attained 50 years or if he is in service of the bank on or after having

completed 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 1.11.93, after having completed ten years pensionable

he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.05.1998, after having

completed ten years pensionable service provided or he has attained

in a case which can be said to be identical to the case in hand before

4 In the context of relief sought in the present petition, the

conclusion of the Division Bench insofar as the pensionable service

is concerned is contained in paragraph 14 of the said Judgment

which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced hereinunder:

14. Thus, pensionable service of the Petitioner is to be

5 Hence, the Division Bench of Madras High Court considering

the seniority rules which postulate the seniority has to be counted

from the date of initial appointment, held that the pensionable

service is to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment.

6 In the case of the Petitioner above named that is precisely not

probation has been discounted, resulting in the Petitioner falling

short of the qualifying service of 20 years. There is no dispute about

Petitioner took VRS on 31/03/2001 which is more than 20 years of

service and hence, even if the period of leave of loss which is a

period of 1 month and 8 days is deducted, the Petitioner would still

fulfill the qualifying service of 20 years. The above petition is

therefore, required to be allowed. We accordingly direct the

Respondent no. 1 to pay pension to the Petitioner, calculated from

the date of her retirement i.e. from 31/03/2001. Arrears of pension

would thereafter pay pension from month to month as per Rules.

7 The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

8 Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms with

parties to bear their respective costs.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] [R. M. SAVANT, J.]

You might also like