Heard Mr. DP Chaliha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. UP Chaliha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SS Sarma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents for payment of pension.

Facts of the case may be briefly narrated.

Petitioner had joined service in the State Bank of India (SBI) as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 21.10.1980. In the course of his service, he was promoted to the rank of Deputy Manager, and at the relevant point of time, he was serving as Deputy Manager in the North Lakhimpur Branch of SBI.

SBI issued a circular on 30.12.2000, deciding to implement a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the employees called, SBI Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Scheme). All permanent employees of SBI who had put in 15 years of service or had completed 40 years of age as on 31.12.2000 were eligible to avail the Scheme. Intending eligible employees had to apply between 15.01.2001 to 31.01.2001. As per the Scheme, gratuity, provident fund, pension, leave encashment etc., as due, were to be paid to the employees who would be granted voluntary retirement as per the Scheme.

Petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under the Scheme, which was accepted by the SBI and he was informed that his voluntary retirement would come into force w.e.f. 31.03.2001.

Following his voluntary retirement, petitioner received his dues, except pension. He, therefore, represented before the SBI authorities for pension under the SBI Employees’ Pension Fund Rules (Pension Rules). Petitioner was, however, informed by SBI authorities on 13.09.2001 that he was not eligible for pension as per the Pension Rules. Petitioner was further informed by another communication dated 15.09.2001 that under the Pension Rules, a person who retires before the age of superannuation is eligible for pension only if he completes 20 years of pensionable service. Since petitioner did not put in the required length of pensionable service as on the date of retirement, he would not be entitled to pension.

This led the petitioner to file WP(C) No. 2980/2002 before this Court. This Court held that petitioner had not completed 20 years of pensionable service and, therefore, he was not entitled to pension under Rule 22(i) of the Pension Rules. But, it was noted that petitioner had made a claim for proportionate pension under Rule 22(ii), under which the Trustees of the Pension Fund had the discretion to grant proportionate pension to a member of the pension fund who has attained the age of 55 years or who has suffered permanent incapacity to the satisfaction of the authority. This Court, therefore disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 20.07.2007 with the direction that Trustees of the Pension Fund should consider the representation filed by the petitioner in terms of Rule 22 (ii) of the Pension Rules and thereafter to pass necessary order.

Following the order of this Court, petitioner was informed by the Zonal Office of the SBI, Jorhat vide letter dated 28.12.2007 that the Trustees of SBI Pension Fund in the meeting held on 29.11.2007 had considered the representation of the petitioner, but declined to accept the prayer of the petitioner for proportionate pension.

Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed.

Petitioner has contended that the Trustees did not consider the claim of the petitioner in the correct perspective and the discretion vested on them was exercised in a mechanical manner without reference to the object behind Rule 22(ii) of the Pension Rules. Petitioner has contended that he has fallen short of only 20 days of the pensionable service of 20 years and the authority ought to have shown the magnanimity in condoning the shortfall considering the eligibility of the petitioner and his long service to the Bank. Further contending that impugned order is illegal and arbitrary, interfere