STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. L KAHHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in Civil Appeal No. 3431/2000 served in the Army as Sepoys and joined the service of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) as Security Guards. The 2nd respondent (Abbas), who is no more and whose L.Rs. are on record, was appointed by the Bank on 22-8-1962. The 4th respondent (Marimuthu) was appointed on 8-9-1957 and the 5th respondent (Raju) was appointed on 1-9-1955. By that time, they were aged 37, 35 and 38 years respectively. The 2nd respondent rendered 22 years of service, the 4th respondent 24 years of service and the 5th respondent 22 years of service in the Bank, by the time they retired at the age of 60. There is no need to refer to the other two respondents (Respondent Nos. 1 and 3) as the first respondent has already got the relief during the pendency of the writ petition and the third respondent was denied relief by the High Court. They are unnecessarily shown as respondents. Though the S.L.P. was filed against 14 respondents who were writ petitioners, all excepting five, were deleted from the array of respondents subsequently. Hence this appeal is effective against three respondents only.

(2.) A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court in the year 1986 seeking a direction to the Bank to admit them to the benefit of pension fund and to pay pension. The pension was denied to them on the ground that they exceeded the age limit of 35 years as on 1-1-1965. It may be stated here that the age limit was increased to 38 years later on and that is how some of the original writ petitioners got the relief. The prescription of the age limit of 35 years as well as the cut-off date of 1-1-1965 was questioned before the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. This led to the filing of writ appeal by the aggrieved employees. The Division Bench, by the impugned judgment dated 4-2-1998, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and allowed the appeal in part. The Division Bench of the High Court directed the Bank to admit appellant Nos. 3, 10, 11 and 13 to the pension fund with effect from April, 1983. That means, the respondents 2, 4 and 5 in this appeal, apart from one more person (whose name has been deleted from S.L.P. in view of non-compliance with Office Report) have got the relief from the High Court. Hence, this appeal by the Bank.

(3.) Civil Appeal No. 3432 of 2000 is in the nature of a cross-appeal filed by four persons who were appellant Nos. 4, 6, 12 and 14 in the writ appeal, to whom relief was denied by the High Court.