P M PRABAKARAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge made in W.P.No.1782 of 1994, dated 22.7.2005, wherein the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition along with the connected writ petitions.

(2.) The prayer in the writ petition filed by the appellant herein is for a declaration declaring Rule 8(a) & 20 of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Regulations, in so far as it seeks to exclude service rendered by an employee before the date of his admission to the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund and after the age of completion of 58 years of age and Rule 22 of the said Rules, 1955 and the foot note to Staff Circular No.PER/48/85, dated 9.10.1985 and the consequential letter dated 12.8.1992 of the Branch Manager, Chetpet Branch, as illegal, and direct the respondent-bank to pay pension to the appellant on par with the Reserve Bank of India (Pension Regulations), 1990, counting the entire period of service from February, 1970 till 31.5.1992, the date of retirement together with penal interest at 24% per annum.

(3.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant is an ex-serviceman. After the discharge from military service, he was appointed in Nungambakkam Branch of State Bank of India as an Armoured Guard temporarily in February, 1970 and on 10.10.1973, he was temporarily appointed as Havildhar in the respondent-bank. The appellant's service was confirmed as Havildhar from 10.4.1974 and he retired from service on 31.5.1992 as his date of birth is 16.5.1932. After retirement, the appellant submitted an application for pension and the same having been rejected on 12.8.1992, the appellant has filed the above writ petition with the above said prayer contending that he has completed more than 20 years of service in the bank including the temporary service both as Armoured Guard and Havildhar and as such he is entitled to get pension and the rejection of his request based on the State Bank of Employees' Pension Fund Rules relying on Regulation 7(a), 20 and 22 are illegal and for consequential prayer for the sanction of pension. The main ground of attack is that the Regulation, which states that the services rendered to the bank prior to the confirmation is not eligible for pension is arbitrary and the appellant having rendered the service for over 22 years cannot be denied of pension.