The main legal point established in the judgment is that pension entitlement under the Pension Rules is a vested right and cannot be denied without due process of law. Additionally, the court emphasized the applicability of Section 17A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in awarding interest on arrears of pension.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who was working as Cashier-cum-Clerk-cum-Typist (CCT) under the State Bank of India, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to sanction pension under the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, with effect from 01.03.2013, on his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2013. The petitioner further seeks for direction to the opposite parties to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of arrears of pension due to him with effect from 21.03.2015, i.e. the date from which the award became enforceable under Section 17A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, till the same is actually paid.

2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that, the petitioner joined in the permanent post of Cashier-cum-Clerk-cum-Typist (CCT) in State Bank of India on 18.01.1979. While he was working in the Temple Road Branch, Puri, on 30.10.1986, the opposite party-bank placed him under suspension. Steps were also taken to prosecute him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Before investigation was completed, the opposite party bank conducted a domestic enquiry against the petitioner and after holding him guilty, dismissed him from service on 17.02.1990. Subsequently, the CBI refused to prosecute the petitioner and consequentially, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar discharged him from the case on 03.12.1990. Against dismissal from service on 17.02.1990, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Bhubaneswar. The Central Government, vide order dated 28.08.1991 referred the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar for adjudication with the following schedule of reference:-

'Whether the action of the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar in dismissing Shri Satya Naryan Dora, C.C.T. from service with effect fro 17-2-1990 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?'

2.1 The Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar decided the preliminary issue and passed an order on 18.10.1997 holding the inquiry conducted against the petitioner as unfair and improper. The opposite party bank challenged the same before this Court by filing OJC No. 16529 of 1997. This Court, vide order dated 06.05.2008, without interfering with the order dated 18.10.1997 on the preliminary issue, remitted the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubanesar giving liberty to the Bank to lead evidence if it so wanted. In the meantime, the said case was transferred from Industrial Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar to Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)- cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and re-numbered as Tr. I.D. Case No. 91 of 2001. After due adjudication, the Presiding Officer, CGIT, Bhubaneswar, vide its award dated 21.04.2009, held the dismissal of the petitioner as unjust and illegal and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with 50% back wages. The award dated 21.04.2009 was assailed by the opposite party bank before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 19687 of 2009. This Court, vide order dated 22.01.2014, quashed the relief granted in the award, but upheld the finding of the Tribunal on the preliminary issue and remitted the matter to the CGIT for passing fresh order after hearing arguments from both sides without taking any fresh evidence. As a consequence thereof, the CGIT passed its award on 19.01.2015 holding that the action of the 1st party management (opposite party herein) is not legal and justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service of the workman Shri Dora (petitioner herein) with effect from 17.02.1990. Accordingly, the CGIT directed the 1st party management (opposite party herein) to pay an amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs towards compensation to the petitioner. The 1st party management was also directed to pay 50% of the back wages to the petitioner with effect from the date of his dismissal, i.e. 17.02.1990 till