STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. K.V. RAMAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was born on 24.4.1935. He was appointed as a temporary Watchman by the appellants on 8.10.1967, but he stopped attending work with effect from 1.3.1976. The respondent was again appointed as an Armed Guard on 26.10.1983 and his services were confirmed on 26.4.1984. It is the case of the appellants that the retirement age was 58 years and the respondent thus retired on 30.4.1993 on completing 58 years of age. He was, however, granted an extension of two years upto the age of 60 years and thus finally retired on 30.4.1995.

(2.) THE respondent, despite his claim, was not granted pension and his representation dated 19.5.1998, was rejected vide communication dated 2.6.1998, which resulted in filing of W.P. No. 19838/1998. This writ petition was allowed on 27.8.2003, by the impugned order. The impugned order is predicated on a reasoning that since the respondent had the qualifying service of 10 years on the date of his retirement i.e., 30.4.1995, he was eligible for pension.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants has urged before us that at each of the relevant stages, the respondent was over -aged to be admitted to the pension fund. The respondent was advised on 27.4.1984 itself that he could not be admitted to the pension fund as he was aged above 35 years on the date of his confirmation, which was the maximum age at which a person could be admitted to the pension fund (respondent was 49 years of age). The relevant R.8(c) was, however, amended and the maximum age was increased to 38 years with effect from 1.7.1987; but, the respondent was 52 years of age at that time. The further amendment to the R.increased the age to 48 years with effect from 1.11.1993, when the respondent was 58 years and 6 months old. This is the reason why the respondent was never admitted to the pension fund and thus, even if he had minimum qualifying service of 10 years, he could not be granted pension.