1. A former employee claimed pension benefits after their service was terminated due to unauthorized absence, disputing the denial of pension entitlement under bank rules. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 359
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
K.G. Seshadri – Appellant
Versus
The Trustees Of State Bank Of India And Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4279 of 2026 (Arising Out Of S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 12462 of 2022)
Decided On : 08-04-2026
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Pension – Entitlement to get pension must be fulfilled by concerned employee.
(2) Voluntary abandonment of service is distinct from voluntary retirement.
(1) Pension – Entitlement to get pension must be fulfilled by concerned employee.
(2) Voluntary abandonment of service is distinct from voluntary retirement.
Subject
Service Law - Pensionary Benefits
Act Referred
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT: S.33(C)(2)
STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES: R.22, R.22(i)(c)
STATE BANK OF INDIA EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND RULES: R.22, R.22(i)(c)
Headnote
State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955 – Rule 22(i)(c) – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 33C(2) – Pension – Entitlement – Voluntary abandonment – Two conditions that are required to be fulfilled are that appellant must have completed twenty years of pensionable service provided that he attained age of fifty years during the relevant time – Total service years of appellant is less than 20 years – Mandatory condition relating to attainment of prescribed age under Rule 22(i)(a) also remains unfulfilled – In view of non-satisfaction of both essential conditions, appellant is not entitled to claim pension under Rule 22(i)(a) of Pension Fund Rules – Also, appellant’s case cannot be said to fall under Rule 22(i)(c) since appellant was never granted VRS, instead his services were declared to have been voluntary abandoned – Appellant cannot be said to be eligible for pension under Pension Fund Rules considering that he has not completed 20 years of service nor had attained age of 50 years, making him ineligible under Rule 22(i)(a). (Paras 30 and 32)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeal is directed against impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2022 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A No.1065 of 2022, whereby Division Bench of High Court dismissed appeal filed by appellant and upheld order passed by Single Judge of High Court.
Findings of Court:
The very foundation of the appellant’s claim, namely, his entitlement to pension, is seriously disputed by the respondent-Bank, particularly with respect to the fact that his case is not of voluntary retirement, rather of voluntary abandonment of service on part of the appellant.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The appellant's eligibility for pension under Rule 22(i)(c) requires 20 years of pensionable service irrespective of age; pleaded 20 years 3 months but record shows confirmed service plus voluntary abandonment, totaling less than 20 years for pension purposes. (!) (!) (!) - The case distinguishes between voluntary retirement and voluntary abandonment; pension under Rule 22(i)(c) is not applicable where abandonment occurred rather than retirement. (!) (!) (!) - The appellant cannot qualify under Rule 22(i)(a) since he did not complete 20 years of service nor attain age 50 at cessation; thus ineligible for pension under Rule 22(i)(a). (!) (!) (!) - The Labour Court/High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant pension under Section 33C(2) because pension rights were disputed and not pre-existing; Supreme Court proceeds on merits. (!) (!) (!) - The Pension Fund Rules define the required conditions and calculation of pensionable service, including eligibility and computation starting from confirmed service; the appellant’s service period falls short. (!) (!) (!) - The decision dismisses the appeal for pension benefits as the appellant does not meet either Rule 22(i)(c) or Rule 22(i)(a). (!)
Question 1?
Question 2?
Question 3?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. N S Nappinai, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. B. Dhananjay, Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vinod K. Nair, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Nizamuddin, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Ms. Mahima Kapur, Adv. Ms. Mansi Kapur, Adv. Ms. Santha Smruthi, Adv. Mr. Anuraj Mishra, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. N S Nappinai, Sr. Adv. Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. B. Dhananjay, Adv. Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vinod K. Nair, Adv. Mr. C. Kannan, Adv. Mr. Nizamuddin, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Ms. Mahima Kapur, Adv. Ms. Mansi Kapur, Adv. Ms. Santha Smruthi, Adv. Mr. Anuraj Mishra, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. The employee argued entitled to pension under specific service rules, while the bank maintained the claim was ineligible due to insufficient service duration and voluntary abandonment of service. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 14 )
3. The court assessed eligibility under pension rules, finding the employee failed both the minimum service duration and age requirements, and distinguished voluntary abandonment from recognized voluntary retirement schemes. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. Pension entitlement under the specific bank rules requires strict compliance with qualifying service and age conditions; voluntary abandonment of service does not equate to voluntary retirement eligibility. (Para 19 , 24 , 26 , 30 , 32 )
5. The appeal is dismissed, confirming the ineligibility for pension benefits due to failure to meet mandatory service and age requirements. (Para 32 )
6. Can a labor court adjudicate a pension claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act when the underlying entitlement is disputed?
No. Proceedings under Section 33C(2) are in the nature of execution and restricted to pre-existing rights; they cannot be used to adjudicate disputed entitlements regarding pension eligibility. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 13 , 17 )
7. Does voluntary abandonment of service satisfy the requirements for voluntary retirement under the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955?
No. Voluntary abandonment due to unauthorized absence is distinct from a formal, sanctioned voluntary retirement. Consequently, it does not trigger the benefits associated with voluntary retirement under the Pension Fund Rules. (Para 25 , 26 , 32 )
8. What are the mandatory conditions for eligibility under Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund Rules?
Eligibility requires the completion of twenty years of pensionable service and the attainment of fifty years of age. Failure to satisfy either of these conditions renders an employee ineligible for pension benefits. (Para 19 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
JUDGMENT :
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A No.1065 of 2022, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-Bank and the same was confirmed after the probation period of six months i.e., from 17.02.1979 till 12.12.1998. The appellant ceased to be in the job and left for abroad in the year 1989. After returning in the year 2004, he gave a letter to rejoin the service. However, the respondent-Bank turned down the said request and, vide letter dated 21.07.2008, the respondent-Bank declared that the appellant has been voluntarily retired.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter dated 21.07.2008, the appellant filed a writ petition being W.P. No.19002 of 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. On 21.04.2009, the High Court orally directed the appellant to withdraw the case and approach the Labour Court.
5. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the appellant approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court1[For short, “Labour Court”], Chennai, by filing a claim petition being CP No.5 of 2010 under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472[For short, “the ID Act”] and prayed the Labour Court to compute the appellant’s pension benefits @ Rs.8,11,770/- along with interest. The Labour Court vide order dated 24.09.2010 dismissed the claim petition by observing that it had no jurisdiction and competence to decide the case, since the present case was not relating to any pre-existing right under pension rules, and, hence, it could not adjudicate the issue raised therein as per ID Act or under the SBI Pension Rules.
6. The appellant once again approached the High Court by way of a writ petition being W.P No.25597 of 2010. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.11.2019 concluded that the appellant could not establish any pre-existing right with reference to the eligibility conditions prescribed under the pension scheme and confirmed the findings of the Labour Court inter alia holding that since the eligibility and other terms and conditions for grant of pension are all disputed facts, the claim petition filed by the appellant could not have been entertained by the Labour Court.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 05.11.2019 of the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed W.A. No.1065 of 2022 before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench vide its impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2022 dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge taking into consideration the limited jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and that the claim of pensionary benefits was disputed by the respondent(s) by a reasoned order and the challenge to it by the writ petition was not pressed by the appellant and was rather withdrawn.
SUBMISSIONS
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that appellant has completed 20 years and 3 months and 25 days of service from date of appointment/date of confirmation and, hence, he was entitled to pension as per the Pension Fund Rules, more specifically under Rule 22 (i)(c) of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 19553[For short, “Pension Fund Rules”].
9. Additionally, it was argued that the respondent-Bank denied the legitimate pension by deliberate misinterpretation of Pension Fund Rules by not applying Rule 22 (i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules, which states completion of 20 years’ service, irrespective of age, the respondent-Bank is said to have approbated and reprobated in their counter affidavit that the appellant has been declared under Voluntary Cessation, but deny legitimate pension, by erroneously applying the incorrect
