S VEERAKUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondents relating to the payment of pension to the petitioner and quash the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in PER PEN 4058 dated 29.10.1998 and of the 2nd respondent in PER/SUR/DS/No.6762, dated 3.1.2000 and further direct the respondents to sanction and pay the petitioner pension due along with arrears from 1.8.1991 with interest and direct the respondents to extend the 1st respondent's Scheme or Medical benefit to retired employees" to the petitioner and to his spouse.

(2.) WITH the consent of counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard Mr.J.Radhakrishnan, for Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Kanniah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner claims that he was a temporary part time employee of the first respondent bank from 15.6.1967 on a consolidated salary of Rs.26 per month and was holding the post of part time watchman. Though the appointment was a part time job, the petitioner was required to serve as a full time employee besides he was called upon to discharge the dues of a messenger and that of a watchman. On 7.8.1974, the petitioner was appointed as Sweeper + Water boy on a basic salary of Rs.122 per month. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation and he was permitted to retire on 31.7.1991. The State Bank Staff union Madras Circle congratulated the petitioner on the date of superannuation and praised the petitioner. They also gave a cheque for Rs.5000/= in appreciation of the petitioner's services. Despite rendering 24 years of service no pension has been paid, but only a gratuity of Rs.24196-65 was paid. The petitioner claimed medical benefits to which the retired employees of the Bank Employees are entitled to. However, the third respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioner is not eligible for pension since the petitioner joined the service at the age of 42. All the requests made by the petitioner and demands made by the petitioner for pension have been negatived. The stand of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefit is unsustainable and it is not warranted. Hence the petitioner has approached this court seeking the relief of mandamus.

(3.) AS the petitioner was more than 42 years as on 7.3.1991, the date of appointment, he was ineligible to be admitted to the Pension Fund Scheme of the Respondent Bank. Rule 22(1) of the S.B.I Pension Fund Scheme Rules have no application whatsoever since he has not completed the pensionable service in the respondent bank. The claim that the petitioner was a permanent employee and therefore he is entitled to pension is unsustainable.