1. Heard Mr. S. Sachindra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Somorjit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank.

2. The issue involved in this case is whether the late husband of the petitioner would have been entitled to become a member of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund introduced by the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules 1955 as amended from time to time. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that her late husband joined State Bank of India Imphal Branch, Manipur, on 25.12.1958 thereafter, his service was confirmed on 25.7.1959. At the time of confirmation of his service as an employee of the SBI, the petitioner's late husband was 35 years 4 months 24 days.

3. According to rule 8(c) of the State Bank of India Employees Fund Rules, 1955 ('Rules, 1955'), no employee would be eligible to become a member of the pension fund if he is over 35 years of age. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of rule 8 of the Rules, 1955, is reproduced hereinbelow:

"8. Every whole time permanent employee in the service of the Bank who is entitled to the pension benefits under the terms and conditions of his service shall become a member of the fund from

(a) the date from which he is confirmed in the service of the Bank. OR

(b) the date from which he may be required to become a member of the fund under the terms and conditions of his service.

Provided:

(a) he is not a member of the Imperial Bank of India Employees' Pension and Guarantee Fund or if he is engaged in any country outside India and appointed for service in such country.

(b) he is not below 21 years of age

(c) he is not over 35 years of age.

(d) ............

(e)............"

4. Rule 22 of the Rules, 1955, which provides for Eligibility for pension, is as follows:

"(1) Amember shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the Bank's service:

(a) After having completed twenty years' pensionable service provided that he has attained the ape of fifty years:

(b) After having completed twenty years' pensionable service' irrespective of the age he shall have attained, if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise he is incapacitated for further active service.

(c) After twenty-five years' pensionable service."

5. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is the widow of late S. Babu Singh who expired on 14.12.1994, claiming pension on behalf of her late husband from the date it became due to her late husband and also family pension for the petitioner herself. The grievance of the petitioner, as projected in this writ petition, is that her late husband had already crossed 35 years 4 months and some days on the date he was confirmed in the service of SBI and on this ground, he was refused by the respondents to become a member of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund by invoking Pension rules 8(c).

6. The petitioner further submits that pension was erroneously and illegally denied to her late husband due to misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the relevant rule as extracted herein above. It is not in dispute that when the late husband of the petitioner retired from service on 22.2.1982, after completion of 58 years of age, he had already completed 22 years 7 months of service in the SBI. Thus, it is submitted that by invoking rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules, 1955, pension should have been granted to the late husband of the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner would have also been entitled to family pension.

7. The respondent-Bank submitted an affidavit disputing the contentions and claims of the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was over-aged when he was confirmed in the service of the bank on 25.7.1959 and as such, the restriction imposed by rule 8(c) of the Rules, 1955 was applicable and as a result, the late husband of the petitioner could not be allowed to become a member of the Pension Fund. It is further submitted by the learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document