JUDGMENT

Alexander Thomas, J.

The sole respondent herein has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil), W.P.(C) No.16175 of 2014 before this Court with the following prayers:

“(a) Call for the records and filed leading to Exhibit P4 from the respondents and quash Exhibit P4 by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

(b) Declare that petitioner's service of 19 years 6 months and

28 days in the 1st respondent-bank is liable to be treated and reckoned as 20 years of service, for the purpose of payment of pensionary benefits under Exhibit P1 Pension regulations and that petitioner is accordingly entitled to pensionary benefits under Exhibit P1 Pension Regulations:

(c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to reckon the petitioner to have completed 20 years of service qualifying for pension under Regulation 29 of Exhibit P1 Pension Regulations and to accordingly disburse and pay to the petitioner, all pensionary benefits in terms of Exhibit P1 Pension Regulations for the period from 1.2.2014 onwards, alongwith arrears and with interest thereunder at the rate of 12% per annum from

1.2.2014 until date of payment; and (d) Grant such other and further reliefs as are deemed just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this proceedings; “

2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned judgment on 25.10.2021 finally disposing of the instant W.P.(C) No.16175 of 2014, with the specific finding that the writ petitioner therein is entitled to lawfully secure the voluntary retirement pension in terms of Regulation 29 of Ext.P1 Regulations, in as much as his part period of service of 6 months and 27 days could be reckoned as one year in terms of Regulation 18 thereof and hence, if the said period is added on along with his 19 years of service, he would complete the requisite minimum qualifying service of 20 years in terms of Regulation 28(1) and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge as per the impugned judgment has set aside and quashed Ext.P4 order dated 20.06.2014 issued by R3 in the W.P.(C) rejecting the claim for the said pension and has issued a direction that the pension in that regard shall be paid to the writ petitioner within two months, etc. It is this verdict of the learned Single Judge in the above W.P.(C) that is under challenge at the instance of the respondents in the W.P.(C) (the bank management), in the present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.

3. Heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of Travancore appearing for the appellants in the W.A./respondents in the W.P(C) and Sri.Ashok B. Shenoy, learned Advocate instructed and assisted by Sri.P.S.Gireesh, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the W.A./writ petitioner.

4. We have heard both sides in extenso and have considered the pleadings in the petition records and also gone through the Regulations governing the field. We have also perused through the various judgments relied on by both sides.

5. It will be pertinent to refer to the factual aspects in this case. The sole respondent herein/writ petitioner (referred herein for short as “the writ petitioner”) had joined the service of the appellant State Bank of Travancore on 04.07.1994 in the post of Cashier cum Clerk and he had secured promotions also thereafter. At the relevant time, he made the request for voluntary retirement. He had a total spell of service of 19 years, 6 months and 28 days of service. As is discernible from Ext.P2, the writ petitioner had submitted application before the appellant Bank seeking permission for voluntary retirement from service in terms of Regulation 29 of Ext.P1 Regulations. The said request of the petitioner was granted as per letter No.AGM II/K/107 dated 05.12.2013 issued by the competent authority of th