DEO RAJ YADAV Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the State Bank of India.

(2.) The petitioner is an Ex-Army man and was appointed as a Security Guard in the State Bank of India on May 11, 1971. He was confirmed in the service in the bank on November 11, 1971 . His date of birth as recorded in the Service Book is October 16, 1933 and, consequently on the date when he was confirmed in November 1971 he was over 38 years of age. Under the Rules framed by the bank, the age of retirement is 58 years. The petitioner retired on reaching the age of superannuation on October 15, 1991 but was granted two extension of service, w.e.f. October 16, 1991 to October 15, 1992 and from October 16, 1992 to October 15, 1993. In this manner, the petitioner contended that he had been in service for more than 20 years. The petitioner made a representation to the authority praying that he was entitled for the payment of the pension under the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated October 18, 2003. Consequently, the present writ petition was filed praying for a writ of inandamus commanding the respondents to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted, that according to the Pension Rules framed by the bank, the cut of date for becoming a member of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund is 38 years coupled with the fact that an employee should have a total service of 20 years. The petitioner submits that on the date when he was appointed on 11th May, 1971, he had not crossed the age of 38 years and was, therefore, eligible to become a member of the Pension Fund, and that he had retired in 1993 and, accordingly, had put in almost 22 years of service. Therefore, he had completed more than the minimum service of 20 years as required under the Rules, and was therefore again qualified for receiving the pension under the Rules framed by the bank.