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.

ORDER :

T.VINOD KUMAR, J.

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he had joined the service of the respondent bank on 29.06.1981 and after probation of 6 months period, his service was confirmed with effect from 29.12.1981; that while working in the respondent bank, he was placed under suspension on 18.12.2001 and was finally discharged from the service on 18.10.2003.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents had initiated disciplinary action against him and on finding, the charges proved against him, had “discharged him from service with superannuation benefits ie., pension, provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment”; and that by the order of disciplinary authority dated 18.10.2003, the period of suspension i.e., from 18.12.2001 to 18.10.2003 ie., 1 year 10 months as suspension only, for all intents and purposes.

4. Petitioner further contended that in all, from the date of joining of service of the respondent bank on 29.06.1981, till the order of disciplinary authority by which he was discharged from service on 18.10.2003, he had put in 22 years 4 months of service and by excluding the period of suspension of 1 year 10 months, he had put the service of more than 20 years and was thus, entitled to be granted pension in terms of State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules (in short “Pension Rules”).

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he had challenged the action of the disciplinary authority in discharging him from service, firstly, by filing an Appeal and thereafter approaching this Court by way of Writ Petition, the challenge to the disciplinary order was not successful and the Writ Petition filed by him was dismissed on 12.01.2009.

6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that notwithstanding the order of disciplinary authority having attained the finality, he is entitled for being granted pension as he was admitted to the membership of Pension Fund of the respondents and also having completed the period of pensionable service prescribed under the Pension Rules.

7. Petitioner contended that as the respondents did not grant him pensionary benefits, though he is eligible, he had approached the first respondent and submitted a representation dated 23.10.2020 requesting to consider his claim for pension and as the said representation did not illicit any response from the first respondent, he had followed up by another representation dated 24.08.2021.

8. Petitioner contends that in response to the representation given by him on 24.08.2021, the second respondent herein had issued the impugned reply vide communication dated 07.09.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for being granted pensionary benefit on the ground that he is not eligible for pension as he has not completed 20 years of pensionable service and that the Judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1483 of