N NATARAJAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, a retired Bank employee, has filed this writ petition for issuing writ of mandamus to the respondents directing them to pay pension to him with effect from 1. 8. 1992 and further to extend the benefit of the scheme for Medical Benefit to Retired Employees to the petitioner and his spouse.

(2.) PETITIONER in the writ petition claims that he was appointed as a Messenger under the respondent Bank on 1. 5. 1952 and was in continuous service in Tiruppur Branch of State Bank of India for a period of 17 years and thereafter he was on sick leave on loss of pay from 1. 3. 1969 to 28. 2. 1970 and resumed duty on 1. 3. 1970. It is claimed that the petitioner was being treated as in temporary service. Subsequently, the Branch Manager took an application from the petitioner on 6. 8. 1970 for permanent appointment and thereafter appointment order dated 5. 11. 1970 was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner however claimed that there was never any break in service. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Bill Collector and ultimately he retired on 31. 7. 1992. The petitioner claimed that as per Rule 22 (i) (a) of the S. B. I. Pension Fund Rules, a member is entitled to pension after completion of 20 years of pensionable service and though the petitioner had made several representations claiming pension, there was no response from the bank. It is further alleged that medical benefits scheme was effective from 1. 7. 1996 as per which the retired employees and their spouses are entitled to finance assistance for medical treatment. However, a condition is incorporated in the said scheme that the retired employee who desires to avail such benefit should make an one time contribution of a months gross pension before 31. 12. 1996. The petitioner claims that as he was not granted any pension, he was not able to join in the said scheme. It is claimed that for no fault of the petitioner, though he had served the bank for 40 years, he was deprived of the pensionary benefits and also the subsequent medical benefits under the Medical benefit Scheme. Ultimately after much correspondence a reply was given to the petitioner that by the time of the petitioners entry into bank service, he had already crossed the age of 38 years and as such he was not eligible for pension. The petitioner claims that the continuous period prior to 5. 11. 1970, during which the petitioner had also served the bank, should be counted towards pensionary service. The petitioner claims that the bank authorities had illegally excluded the period of service rendered by the petitioner under the bank from 1. 5. 1952 to 28. 2. 1969 and again from 1. 3. 1970 to 4. 11. 1970. It is also claimed that subsequently the Pension Rules have been amended to relax the pension Fund Rules whereunder the employees of the bank who had retired on or after 1. 11. 1993 having a minimum period of service of 10 years were made eligible for pension. It is claimed that the benefit of such Rule also should be extended to the petitioner and the exclusion of the employees who had retired prior to 1. 11. 1993 is discriminatory and violative of the principles of equality envisaged under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the Medical Benefit Scheme made applicable to persons who retire after 1. 7. 1996 is also discriminatory. On the aforesaid premises,the petitioner has claimed the reliefs as indicated earlier.

(3.) THE petitioner has also contended that the bank in certain other cases has granted pension to many people even though such persons were not eligible. However, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate such contention with reference to any particular instance. Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on this aspect, I deem it proper to observe that it would be open to the petitioner to file appropriate representation which may be considered on its own merits by the Bank.