$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 19.03.2025 + W.P.(C) 3395/2025, CM APPL. 16059/2025 & CM APPL.

16060/2025 AJAY KUMAR MALIK THROUGH S.P.A. HOLDER ADARSH MALIK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pulkit Prakash, Mr. Arjun Mohan, Mr. Chirantan Krishna and Ms. Arushi Sharma, Advocates.

versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, SC for SBI, Mr.

Akshit Kapur and Ms. Riya Sood, Advocates. CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner challenged an order dated 10.09.2024, by which the respondent – State Bank of India [“the Bank”] rejected his representation dated 03.09.2024, with regard to calculation of his period of service for the purpose of pension.

2. The petitioner was employed in the Bank as a Clerk on 13.06.1977, and was subsequently promoted to Junior Management Grade Scale – I as an Officer. Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, a penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him by order dated 27.05.2003. The Disciplinary Order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on

11.02.2004, and the Reviewing Authority on 03.02.2005.

3. The petitioner’s first writ petition, in this regard, was W.P.(C)

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3395/2025 Page 1 of 6

10973/2006, in which he challenged the disciplinary proceedings, and also sought a direction permitting him to continue in service until the age of superannuation with all service benefits. By order dated 14.07.2006, notice was issued, limited to the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to retiral benefits consequent upon the punishment of compulsory retirement. The writ petition was disposed of on 06.07.2022, setting aside an order dated 30.05.2005, by which the Bank had rejected his request for pension, and permitting him to file a detailed representation. His representation dated 18.07.2022 was rejected by order dated 05.09.2022.

4. Against the order dated 05.09.2022, the petitioner filed the second writ petition, being W.P.(C) 2576/2023, in which he also sought a direction for the release of terminal benefits.

5. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a judgment dated 18.07.2024¹, upholding the decision of the Bank, declining pensionary benefits to the petitioner for want of pensionable service of 25 years. However, in view of the Court’s conclusion that the petitioner was short by less than three months in completing the pensionable service, the petitioner was permitted to seek condonation of the balance period, which would be decided by the Bank in accordance with law.

6. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner submitted a further representation on 03.09.2024, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.09.2024.

7. In the representation dated 03.09.2024, as also in the present writ petition, it is contended by the petitioner that the Bank’s computation of his pensionable service, at less than 25 years, is incorrect, and that he has, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3395/2025 Page 2 of 6 in fact, put in more than 25 years of pensionable service.

8. I am of the view that this contention is no longer open to the petitioner, as the very same argument has been adjudicated in the judgment dated 18.07.2024, which has attained finality. The following observations in the said judgment are relevant in the present case:

“3. Subsequent thereto, Petitioner requested the Bank vide letter dated 10.05.2005 for grant of pension, which request was declined vide letter dated 30.05.2005 on the ground that as per State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules (‘Pension Rules’), pension is payable to an employee only after completion of 25 years of pensionable service or 20 years of pensionable service and attainment of age of 50 years and since on the date of Compulsory Retirement, Petitioner’s total service was only 24 years, 9 months and 3 days and his age was less than 50 years, he was not entitled to pension.

xxx xxx xxx 9. Petitioner was working as a