Entitlement to pension benefits is governed by the statutory provisions and eligibility criteria outlined in the Pension Rules, and the discretion of the employer in implementing voluntary retirement schemes is upheld by the court.

Devendra Kumar Arora, J.

Heard Sri H.G.S.Parihar, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, appearing for the respondents Bank.

2. Ram chandra Singh-Petitioner has filed instant writ petition inter-alia for quashing the order dated 29.5.2001 [contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition] whereby petitioner was informed that according to the instructions received from the controlling authority since the petitioner had not completed the prescribed period of service under the Pension and Provident Fund Rules, he was not eligible for pension. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 18.4.2002 passed on the representation of the petitioner whereby it was informed that in terms of the instructions contained in O.M. No.28/24/94-P &PW(B) dated 30.5.1995, the petitioner was not entitled for reckoning the period of service rendered by him in the Armed Forces towards pensionable service.

3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the pleadings of writ petition, are that the petitioner-Ram Chandra Singh is a retired ex-servicemen and upon retirement from Armed Forces, he was re-employed in State Bank Of India at its M.G. Marg, Kanpur Branch as a temporary Guard from 31st December 1974, where he worked for 3 years 2 months and 29 days upto 31/8/1978. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected and appointed as a permanent Watchman with combined designation vide Memorandum dated 14/8/1978 initially on probation for a period of six months. After completion of probation, the petitioner was made confirmed and thereafter he was transferred to Zonal Office,Lucknow/. By passage of time, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Messenger on which the petitioner continued till his retirement under the State Bank Of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "SBIVRS"). According to the petitioner, he had completed total period of 24 years 11months and 29 days as against the total qualifying period of 10 years of eligibility for pension in terms of the provisions contained in Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

4. It has been contended by the petitioner that he had completed more than 53 years of age and apparently the documents that is Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition, does not reveal any distinction among normal retirees and/or the retirees under SBIVRS, so the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement and submitted his application for retirement in response to the Circular dated 30/12/2000 contained in Annexure-1. Therefore, the decision of not giving pension to the petitioner is bad in the eye of law because ever since the petitioner had opted for SBIVRS on 15/01/2002, he was never told that he will not be entitled for pension after retirement, had he been so advised, the petitioner would have withdrawn his option. However,after accepting the petitioner's application for retirement respondent no-4 vide his letter no R-IV/138, dated 29/05/2001 contained in Annexure-7, impugned in the present writ petition, informed the petitioner that according to the instructions received from the Controlling Authority he would not be entitled for pension since the petitioner had not completed prescribed period of service under the Pension and Provident Fund Rules and cancellation of his retirement was also not possible.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that denial of pension to the petitioner, who has duly been admitted to the Bank's Pension Fund and a certain percentage of his Basic Salary and identified allowances having been credited to the Trust created for the purpose on month-to-month basis, is wholly unjustified and it amounts to breach of trust.

6. It has been also contended that the petitioner has been discriminated against other SBIVRS optees and the action of the respondents in denying the pension to the petitioner is hit by article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution Of India.

7. Lastly, it has been urged tha