Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
S. Sundararaja – Appellant
Versus
State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chair Person, Mumbai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 16535 of 2015 & M.P. No. 2 of 2015 & W.M.P. No. 10314 of 2022
Decided on : 08-07-2022
Pension - Voluntary Retirement Scheme - SBI-EPE Rules - SBI-VRS - Pension Subject to eligibility - Provident Fund with Bank's contribution - Gratuity - Resignation from service - Acceptance of resignation - Eligibility for pensionary benefits - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the rejection of pension claim and issue consequential directions for pensionary benefits - [Pension] - [Voluntary Retirement Scheme] - [SBI-EPE Rules, SBI-VRS] - The court discussed the eligibility for pensionary benefits under the SBI-EPE Rules and SBI-VRS, highlighting the distinction between SBI-VRS and other VRS schemes, and emphasized the statutory nature of SBI-EPE Rules. The court also considered the resignation from service and the acceptance of resignation in determining the eligibility for pensionary benefits, citing the Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar case and concluding that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who resigned from the State Bank of India in 2001, filed a writ petition seeking pension and retirement benefits, which was dismissed in 2008. The petitioner filed a new writ petition in 2014 challenging the rejection of pension claim, which was based on the acceptance of resignation in 2001.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's resignation from service in 2001 and the acceptance of resignation precluded the petitioner from being eligible for pensionary benefits under the SBI-EPE Rules and SBI-VRS. The court also dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of laches and res judicata.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility for pensionary benefits under the SBI-EPE Rules and SBI-VRS, the impact of resignation and acceptance of resignation on pension entitlement, and the applicability of laches and res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners, having resigned from service and had their resignation accepted, were not eligible for pensionary benefits under the SBI-EPE Rules and SBI-VRS. The court also emphasized the statutory nature of SBI-EPE Rules and the distinction between SBI-VRS and other VRS schemes. Additionally, the court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of laches and res judicata.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the third respondent in (1) No.LHO/CHE/PRG/625 dated 28.03.2014, (2) No.LHO/CHE/PPG/10 dated 26.04.2014 and (3) No.HR.Law.354, dated 03.05.2014, to quash the same and issue consequential directions to the respondents to sanction pensionary benefits to the petitioner with effect from 29.06.2001 and disburse the monetary benefits thereof within a fixed time frame with interest at 12% (Compounded Annually).)
1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of pension is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner entered the services in the State Bank of India as Clerk Typist on 07.05.1981. He was promoted as Trainee Officer (Time Scale) with effect from 01.08.1987 in the Junior Management Scale; with effect from the year 1993 in the Middle Management Scale-II. The petitioner states that during the year 2000, he was posted as Manager (Credit Analyst) in the Industrial Finance Branch (Commercial Branch) at Coimbatore on promotion. His aged parents had been living alone with his wife and two minor sons at Chennai and there was nobody else to look after his aged parents and minor children. Due to personal and domestic reasons, the petitioner submitted a letter on 25.05.2001, seeking Voluntary Retirement/Resignation from SBI services with effect from 25.06.2001. The said application was accepted and the petitioner was relieved from service in the year 2001.
3. The writ petitioner filed writ petition in W.P.No.22433 of 2004 along with two other petitioners for the same relief to grant pension and other retirement benefits with interim stay. The said writ petition has elaborately adjudicated, wherein, the very same learned counsel, who is appearing in the present writ petition appeared and elaborately placed the facts before the Court. This Court adjudicated the issues and passed the following orders:
“19. Second Petitioner joined in the service of the Bank as clerk/Typist on 07.05.1981 and he was confirmed in service on 07.11.1981 and resigned from service on 25.06.2001. The Second Petitioner also has not completed the required pensionable service.
20. Third Petitioner joined in the service of the Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 01.03.1986. Third petitioner retired from Bank's service under SBI-VRS on SBI-VRS on 31.03.2001. The Third Petitioner also do not fulfil the eligibility condition relating to completion of 20 years of pensionable service.
21. The learned counsel for the Petitioners mainly contended that on the basis of specific Government directions to correspond to the CCS Rules, other PSBs have taken 15 years as the qualifying service for pension and while so, SBI had not chosen to amend its Pension Rules. The grievance of the Petitioners is that unamended R.7 and R.22 (c) of SBI continued in Rule Books only to deprive the employees of pensionary benefits by the wrongful rule of qualifying service as though it starts from the date from which the employee is confirmed in service. In short, the Petitioners claim pensionary benefits on par with other Nationalised Banks
22. SBI-EPE Rules are separate and distinct from that of Government of India Pension Scheme and P.S.Bs Pension Scheme. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2/Bank, SBI-VRS being Statutory is unique in its nature and it cannot be compared with Rules of other Nationalised Banks providing for pension.
23. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.N.Muthukumarasamy had taken pains to explain how SBI-VRS is different from other VRS Scheme. In case of SBI-VRS, three retirement benefits are payable, viz.,
(1) Pension Subject to eligibility, or
(2) Provident Fund with Bank's contribution;
(3) Gratuity.
In case of other organisations stated by the Petitioners only two retirement benefits are payable, viz.,
(1) pension subject to eligibility or
AI
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
