KAILASH CHANDRA MAHANTA Vs. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER SBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order under Annexure-7 dated 4.4.2002 passed by the Asst. General Manager, S.B.I. in which it was stated that the Government Pension was being credited to Branch Sundry Deposit Account, since the petitioner was not eligible to receive both the pensions i.e. pension from the State Government as well as from the State Bank of India in short the 'Bank'.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was employed in the Mayurbhanj State Bank. The Mayurbhanj State was merged with the State of Orissa pursuant to a Merger Agreement executed on 17.10.1948 between the king of Mayurbhanj State and the Governor General of India. It is alleged in the writ petition that in the Merger Agreement the interest of the employees of Mayurbhanj State was given full protection with regard to financial benefits. It is also asserted in the writ petition that the Mayurbhanj State Bank was taken over by the State Bank of India in the year 1960 and resultantly all the employees including the petitioner were retrenched since the petitioner was found surplus. It appears from Anenxure-2 dated 3.5.1961, the petitioner was given appointment in the State Bank of India as a Clerk and the appointment of the petitioner was a fresh one. In the appointment order, under Annexure-2, it was stated that since the petitioner was over 35 years of age, he was not eligible to be admitted to the membership of State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund. However, the petitioner was admitted as a member of the Employees' Provident Fund of the State Bank of India under Annexure-5 subject to the petitioner surrendering gratuity and other terminal benefits availed by him. It was further asserted that the petitioner has surrendered all the benefits. The petitioner stated that pursuant to the Merger Agreement, he was granted compensatory pension by the State Government after his retrenchment from the Mayurbhanj State Bank. The petitioner has retired from service of the State Bank of India on 24.4.1983 on attaining the age of superannuation. It appears that from the date of retirement i.e. 24.4.1983 till the impugned order under Annexure-7 dated 4.4.2002, the petitioner was receiving pension from the State Bank of India as well as the compensatory pension. By virtue of the impugned order, the compensatory pension which was being paid by the State Government is credited to Branch Sundry Deposit Account. To put it differently the compensatory pension, which the petitioner was being paid, has been denied to the petitioner by issuance of the impugned order under Annexure7, which is assailed in the present writ application.