N EASWARAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these writ appeals, as common question of law involved, based on common rules and the respondents being common, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) BOTH the appellants, N. Easwaran and N. Natarajan, who were in the services of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'bank'), retired on 31st Jan. , 1984 and 31st July, 1992 respectively. As per rule 8 (c) of the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules (hereinafter referred to as the'rules') as was in vogue at the time of their retirement, they having appointed in the service beyond the age of 38 years, were not eligible for admission into the bank's pension fund scheme. In the aforesaid background, the appellant, N. Easwaran, preferred W. P. No. 6691/96 challenging the validity of 38 years of age of entry into service, as was prescribed under Rule 8 (c ). During the pendency of the writ petition, rule 8 (c) was amended vide notification No. CDO/adm/spl/7597, dated 14th Feb. , 1997, enhancing the age of entry into service from 38 years to 48 years for entitlement of pension, but by amendment of Rule 8 (a), it was made applicable only to those, who retired on or after 1st Nov. , 1993. In view of amendment to rule 8 (c), a number of retired employees became eligible for pension, i. e. , those who were appointed after 38 years of age but prior to 48 years, but it was restricted to those who retired on or after 1st Nov. , 1993. Faced with such situation, the appellant, N. Easwaran has also raised question of constitutional validity of cut-off date of 1st Nov. , 1993, as imposed vide amended rule 8 (a ). A separate writ petition was preferred by the appellant, n. Natarajan for extension of benefit of the pension scheme in his favour. BOTH the aforesaid writ petitions were heard by learned single Judge, separately, and were dismissed by two separate impugned judgments, dated 14th Aug. , 2003, in w. P. No. 6691/96 (preferred by N. Easwaran) and 16th July, 2004, in W. P. No. 693/00 (preferred by N. Natarajan) for common reasons shown therein.

(3.) FOR determination of the aforesaid issues, it is desirable to notice and discuss the relevant rules. The Central Board of the Bank, in exercise of powers conferred by Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, (Act 23 of 1955), after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and previous sanction of the central Government, framed rules, namely, "state Bank of India Employees pension Fund Rules, 1955", (hereinafter referred to as'rules, 1955'). Under Rule 7, while provision made as to from which date an employee of the bank may become a member of the fund, the ineligibility for membership was prescribed under rule 8, as quoted hereunder :- "8. Save a provided in rule 25, no employee shall be eligible to become a member of the fund -- (a) if he is a member of the Imperial Bank of India employees'Pension and Guarantee Fund or if he is engaged in any country outside India and appointed for service in such country; (b) if he is below 21 years of age; (c) if he is over 38 years of age; or (d) whose service is specially declared by the Bank to be non-pensionable. " By separate circular No. PER:29:87 dated 2nd May, 1987 and no. PER/43/88 dated 20th Sept. , 1988, under Employees Pension Fund Rules, age for admission, revision of pension, etc. , was circulated. A separate family pension and medical benefit scheme was also introduced on 20th Nov. , 1996.