Back
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
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.
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). (!)
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 Rul
(1) Pension – Entitlement to get pension must be fulfilled by concerned employee.(2) Voluntary abandonment of service is distinct from voluntary retirement.
Eligibility for pension is determined from the date of confirmation in service, excluding probation; unexplained delay in claims bars entitlement according to established legal precedents.
Failure to communicate refusal of voluntary retirement application within three months results in deemed acceptance, upholding the Tribunal's award for retirement benefits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of probationary service should be included in the qualifying service for pension entitlement under the SBI VRS, and the exclusion o....
The judgment established the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, upheld the disqualification of pensionary benefits in case of resignation, and emphasized that the petitioner kn....
Resignation under CCS Pension Rules Rule 26 forfeits past service, barring pensionary benefits to employee or family despite service rendered; distinct from voluntary retirement; no retrospective app....
The court emphasized the importance of timely redressal of grievances and the plain and unambiguous interpretation of statutory provisions.
Validity of voluntary retirement and entitlement to pension benefits under A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
Pension entitlement is protected under law for personnel with over ten years of service, regardless of subsequent resignations, provided statutory rules for retirement were adhered to.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
