$~120 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 18^th July, 2024 + W.P.(C) 2576/2023 A.K. MALIK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Mr. Vivek Gupta, Mr. Manohar Lal Dhingra, Mr. Prashant Shekhar and Mr. Ankit Verma, Advocates versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta, Mr. S.L. Garg, Mr. Balmukand, Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Mr. Arjun Gupta, Mr. Aditya Vikram Gupta and Ms.

Tarunika Sharma, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) Issue an appropriate writ or any other Direction / Order to quash the Decision/ Order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi Impugned Order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi received through Letter No. PPG/DEL/164 dated 05.09.2022;

(b) Issue an appropriate writ or any other Direction / Order to the respondents by directing to Release all the terminal benefits including pensionary benefits to the petitioner consequent to the Compulsory Retirement dated 27.05.2003 or;

(b) Pass any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;”

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2576/2023 Page 1 of 8

2. Petitioner essentially lays a challenge to the impugned order dated 05.09.2022, whereby his representation dated 18.07.2022 was rejected denying him pensionary benefits. Factual matrix to the extent relevant and emerging from the writ petition is that Petitioner joined State Bank of India (‘SBI’) on 13.06.1977 on the post of Clerk and was subsequently promoted to JMGS-I as an Officer. Charge-sheet was issued on 10.02.2001 against the Petitioner, alleging irregularities in performance of duties while posted as Officer-in-Charge, Goverdhan Extension Counter at Radha Kund, Mathura Branch of the Bank. On conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, penalty of ‘Compulsory Retirement’ from service was imposed on the Petitioner vide order dated 27.05.2003, in terms of Rule 67(h) of State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 (‘1992 Rules’). Appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was dismissed vide order dated 11.02.2004 and the review petition also suffered the same fate on 03.02.2005.

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.

4. Challenging the said order, Petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P. (C) No. 10973/2006 praying for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 10.02.2001 and order dated 27.05.2003 imposing the penalty as well Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2576/2023 Page 2 of 8 as the orders of the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities. Petitioner also prayed for a direction to the Bank to allow him to continue in service till he reached the age of superannuation and grant all service benefits, etc. On 14.07.2006, Court issued notice to the Respondents limited to the question of retiral benefits in light of the penalty of Compulsory Retirement. Writ petition was finally disposed of vide order 06.07.2022 setting aside order dated 30.05.2005, whereby Petitioner’s request for pension was rejected and permitting the Petitioner to file a fresh detailed representation to the Chief General Manager, SBI, P