SANTHA SAKKU BAI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of State Bank of Travancore. She entered service on 28.7.1980. When Ext. P1 voluntary retirement scheme was introduced, the petitioner opted for voluntary retirement with effect from 31.3.2001, while she was working as Clerk/Cashier. Her application for voluntary retirement was accepted and she retired from service on 31.3.2001. She was also paid the ex-gratia and other amounts payable under the voluntary retirement scheme. Pension in terms of the State Bank of Travancore (Employees) Pension Regulations on the relevant date was also a benefit available to those employees who opt to voluntarily retire under Ext. P1 scheme. As per Regulation 29, employees having a qualifying service of 20 years are eligible for superannuation pension. As on 31.3.2001, the petitioner had 20 years, 8 months and 4 days of service. Under Regulation 18 of the State Bank of Travancore (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations" for short, the said period of service was liable to be reckoned as 21 years of service. It is not in dispute that while in service, the petitioner had availed leave for a total period of 259 days under various heads. If the said period of leave is reduced from the total length of service, the petitioner had to her credit, as on 31.3.2009, a total service of 19 years, 11 months and 11 days. On the basis that applying Regulation 18, the said period of 19 years, 11 months and 11 days washable to be treated as qualifying service of 20 years, entitling her for superannuation pension, the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 application for payment of superannuation pension as per the Regulations. That request was rejected by Ext. P6 letter dated 28.9.2001 issued by the second respondent on the ground that she did not have 20 years of qualifying service as on 31.3.2001. Along with some others who did not admittedly have 20 years of service, the petitioner moved the General Manager of State Bank of Travancore seeking an amendment of the Regulations to reduce the length of qualifying service from 20 years to 15 years. She along with others thereafter filed O.P. No. 5633 of 2002 in this Court. By Ext. R2(a) judgment delivered on 21.2.2002 this Court directed the Managing Director, State Bank of Travancore to consider the said representation after affording the petitioners therein a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Managing Director of State Bank of Travancore thereafter passed Ext. P9 order declining to reduce the length of qualifying service from 20 years to 15 years. That decision was challenged by the petitioner and others by filing O.P. No. 33127 of 2002 in this Court. By Ext. P10 judgment delivered on 1.7.2005 the said Original Petition was dismissed. However, this Court directed the State Bank of India to consider whether the Regulations can be amended in exercise of the power conferred on the State Bank of India under S. 63 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1958. The petitioner thereafter filed Ext. P11 representation dated 20.10.2004 before the respondents claiming payment of superannuation pension contending that as on 31.3.2001 she had an actual service of 19 years, 11 months and 11 days, which has to be rounded off to 20 years of service applying Regulation 18. That request was rejected and the decision communicated to the petitioner by the State Bank of Travancore by Ext. P12 letter dated 10.10.2005 wherein reference is made only to the fact that her request for amendment of the Regulations has been declined. Exts. P6, P9 and P12 are under challenge in this Writ Petition wherein the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:--

(2.) I heard Sri. George Cherian, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P. Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India and Sri. P. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of Travancore. The petitioner contends that the authority which passed the impugned orders has not considered the impact of Regulation 18 and has also not taken note of the fact that petitioner had physically attended duty for 19 years, 11 months and 11 days. The petitioner contends that irrespective of the question whether she was entitled to seek reduction in the length of qualifying service, the Bank ought to have applied Regulation 18 and reckoned the service of 19 years, 11 months and 11 days rendered by her as 20 years of service, which would entitle her to claim superannuation pension under Regulation 29. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit contending that the claim of the petitioner is barred by the principle of res judicata. Reliance is placed on Ext. R2(a) and Ext. P10 judgments of this Court in support of the said contention. However, the petitioner's contention that the service of 19 years, 11 months and 11 days, which she admittedly had as on 31.3.2001 is liable to be reckoned as 20 years of qualifying service applying Regulation 18, is not controverted by the second respondent.

(3.) I have considered the pleadings and the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had a total service of 20 years, 8 months and 4 days. It is also not in dispute that during the said period of service, she had availed 259 days of leave under various heads. Thus, the petitioner admittedly had a total service of 19 years, 11 months and 11 days. Regulation 18 of the Regulations reads as follows:--