SATYAWAN Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a member of the Indian Air Force from 19.01.1989 to 24.05.1998. He resigned from the Indian Air Force w.e.f. 25.05.1998 as he was selected as a Probationary Officer in the respondent State Bank of Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and joined his duty as such on 01.06.1998. He made a request to the Bank for counting his service with Indian Air Force towards qualifying service for pension. The same was denied on the basis of Regulation 24 of the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The action of the Bank, denying to count the service of the petitioner, towards qualifying service for pension, as also the vires of Regulation 24 of the Regulations, is challenged by the petitioner through the present writ.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. The Bank is a body corporate constituted under the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Bank) Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In exercise of powers vested by virtue of Section 63 of the Act, the Bank has made its Regulations for the purpose of granting pensionary benefits to its employees. Regulation 24 of the Regulations, which has been challenged by the petitioner, is reproduced below for ready reference :-

(3.) The above Regulation clearly lays down that an employee, who has rendered military service before appointment in the Bank, shall continue to draw the military pension, if any and that the military service rendered by him shall not count towards qualifying service for pension. The above Regulation is clear and needs no further interpretation. It clearly provides that no benefit of military service is to be granted to an exserviceman on his appointment as an employee of the Bank for the purpose of counting that service as qualifying service for pension. We do not find the above Regulation to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Rather we find the same to be perfectly justifiable. The benefit of military service cannot be claimed as a matter of right by an ex-serviceman unless that right is backed by any Statute or statutory regulation or instruction etc. The benefit of military service is in the form of a concession given to an ex-serviceman and if an autonomous body like the respondent-Bank decides not to extend that concession, then the same cannot be got enforced through a Court of law, as is being sought to be done by the petitioner.