PRAMILA KIRUBA AUGUSTUS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a declaration that the action of the respondents in not sanctioning pension after voluntary retirement from service by an order of the Bank, dated 31.3.1999 as illegal, contrary to the Bipartite Settlement entered into between the Bank and Unions as well as Rule 22(d) of the SBI Pension Fund Rules and it is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution and also for consequential direction to sanction and pay pension with effect from 31.3.1999 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 12.1.2011, this court directed private notices to be served on the respondents. On such notice, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 17.2.2011. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have also questioned the delay and laches in the petitioner moving this court claiming pension after a period of 12 years from the date of her voluntary retirement. Even her request of pension was received only in June, 2010 which is made only with a view to revive the stale cause of action. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit, dated 28.2.2011.

(3.) THE petitioner's date of birth as per the records was 6.7.1954. THE date when she had voluntarily retired, i.e., on 31.3.1999, she had completed only 44 years and 8 months and had not obtained 50 years of age. Further, as she had sought for voluntary retirement, she was not eligible to get pension as per rules. For voluntary retirement, it is a voluntary abandonment. THE petitioner remained absent for more than 90 days. THErefore, a notice as per bipartite settlement was given to her to join duty. As she did not join duty, in terms of clause 33 of bipartite settlement, dated 21.6.2005, a notice was given. By this process, the petitioner will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from her employment. THE petitioner was confirmed in service as 1.11.1974 and that she can become the member of the Fund only from the said date. THE petitioner never sought for voluntary retirement in terms of Rule 22(1)(c). Merely because her pension papers were forwarded will not enable her to get pension unless she comes within the rule providing pension.