JUDGMENT :

B.R. Sarangi, J.

The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased employee late Balaram Mohanty, who was initially appointed as Godown Keeper in State Bank of India, Cuttack Branch on 02.12.1970. Subsequently, he was promoted to the officer cadre in the year 1978 and then to Middle Management Grade (MMGS-II) on 01.08.1988 and posted at Jeypore Branch, Orissa.

2. While the deceased employee was working as MMGS-II, he was placed under suspension on 27.11.1992. A memorandum of charges was communicated to him by the authority on 18.12.1993, while he was working at Jeypore Branch as Field Officer, that in terms of Rule-50 of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975 (for short “Rules, 1975”) corresponding to new Rule 68(1) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (for short “Rules, 1992”) it had been decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the deceased employee in terms of Rule 50(2)(iii) of Rules, 1975 which corresponds to new Rule 62(2)(iii) of Rules, 1992 and proposed to hold an inquiry against him. On the basis of memorandum of charge, it was alleged that the deceased employee contravened Rules 22(4) and 34(3)(i) which correspond to new Rule 50(4) and 52(3) (i) of Rules, 1992.

3. On being called upon to show cause, the deceased employee submitted his reply on 03.07.1995. While denying all the charges, the deceased employee stated that due to non-supply of relevant documents/materials he could not able to file comprehensive defence statement. Without considering the same the Inquiry Officer continued the proceeding and submitted his report on 05.10.1995 stating that imputations no.1 and 2 were proved, imputations no.3(i) and (ii) were not proved and imputation no.3(iii) was partly proved. Considering such report, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of removal from service on 29.07.1996 and treated the period of suspension as such in terms of Rule 50(3)(iii) and 50-A (8)(ii) of Rules, 1975 which correspond to new Rules 68(3)(iii) and 68-A (8)(II) of Rules, 1992, which was communicated to the deceased employee on 12.08.1997. Against the said order of punishment, the deceased employee preferred appeal on 07.10.1996, but the appellate authority vide order dated 12.08.1997 confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal.

4. Against the order dated 12.08.1997, the deceased employee’s wife-petitioner no.1 on 15.09.1998 filed review petition before the Reviewing Authority-Circle Development Officer, State Bank of India. Without forwarding the review application, the authority rejected the same on 31.07.1999.

When such defect was pointed out, the Circle Development Officer, without forwarding the same to the competent authority, passed another order on 10.04.01 stating that the review was time barred. When petitioner no.1 approached for pension and other pecuniary service benefits, the Circle Development Officer, by observing that the deceased employee had neither completed 50 years of age nor completed 25 years of pensionable services, rejected the claim vide order dated 07.12.1999, hence this application.

5. Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset stated that the petitioners, being the legal heirs of the deceased employee, do not challenge the infirmities committed in the disciplinary proceeding, nor the legality and propriety of the order passed by the appellate authority and confirmed by the reviewing authority, they only seek indulgence of this Court on entitlement of the deceased employee to the pensionary and other pecuniary service benefits. The determination of non-completion of 25 years of service from the date of confirmation of his service cannot sustain in the eye of law. As such, it is contended that the confirmation of service relates back to the initial date of appointment and if that is taken into consideration, it can be safely held that the deceased employee had completed 25 years of service an