ABRAHAM Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition was working with the 1st respondent Bank. He joined the service of the 1st respondent on 4/7/1994 as Cashier-cum-Clerk. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement under the provisions of the State Bank of Travancore (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations' for short) (Ext.P1). The provisions of Chapter V of the Regulations provide for the 'Classes of Pension'. Regulation 29 specifically provided for pension with respect to voluntary retirement. Under clause (1) thereto, it is provided that an employee who has completed "twenty years of qualifying service", on or after 1/11/1993, may seek for voluntary retirement. The petitioner's prayer for the voluntary retirement as above seems to be rejected by the 1st respondent Bank, essentially on the ground that the petitioner did not have the required 20 years of service, and he only had 19 years, six months and 28 days' service. The petitioner, in such circumstances, filed W.P.(C) No.16175 of 2014 before this Court, seeking to rely on the provisions of Regulation 18 of the Regulations, providing for reckoning of "broken period of service of less than one year", as a full year. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by Ext.P2 judgment dtd. 25/10/2021, considered the rival submissions elaborately with specific reference to the mandate under Regulation 18. It is worthwhile to notice the prayer made by the petitioner in the afore writ petition, which is extracted in paragraph No.2 of the judgment, as under:-

(2.) Even thereafter, the petitioner states that his pension was provided/reckoned under the provisions of Regulation 29, without extending the benefit provided under clause (5) thereto, which provided for reckoning the qualifying service by extending an additional five years of service also. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P7 communication issued by the 3 rd respondent Bank, dtd. 6/4/2023, denying the benefit under Regulation 29(5).

(3.) I have heard Sri.P.S.Gireesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank.