JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI, J.)

The State Bank of India/respondent in the W.P.No.26367 of 2021, aggrieved by the order in the said writ petition dated 06.11.2023, is the appellant herein.

2.We have heard Mr.S.Raveendran, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Bazeerahamed, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Anil Bajaj, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.Mr.S.Raveendran, learned Senior Counsel would challenge the findings of the Writ Court directing sanction of pension to the writ petitioner and would submit that in terms of Rule 22 of the State Bank of India (SBI) Employees' Pension Fund Rules, only on completion of 20 years pensionable service, pension would be provided to the employee who has attained the age of 50 years. He would also place reliance on Rule 7 of the Pension Fund Rules states that an employee is entitled to become a member of the pension fund from the date on which his services in the Bank are confirmed or the date from which he may be required to become a member of the fund under the terms and conditions of his services. He would further place reliance on Rule 20 which says that save as provided in Rule 21, with effect from 01.11.1993, service rendered by an employee/member from the date of his admission to the fund up to the date of retirement in terms of Rule 22 infra from the Bank's service, shall be reckoned as service for pension.

4.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the combined reading of the above Rules would clearly indicate that unless the employee had completed 20 years of pensionable service and provided he had attained the age of 50 years, he would not become entitled to pension. The learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the term 'pensionable service' can only be counted from the date of confirmation of service in the Bank and the probationary period of service, if any, has to be excluded since the employee can become a member of the fund only from the date of confirmation of his service and contribution to pension fund by the employee to the Bank starts there from.

5.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would also refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Shanmugavel Vs. CGM, SBI in W.A.No.1483 of 2014 dated 10.02.2015, where the Division Bench held that for the purpose of counting 20 years of pensionable service, the period of probation should also be reckoned or taken into account. However, he would submit that the bank challenged the said decision of the Division Bench in the said case, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.No.16478 of 2015, wherein, the petitioner has specifically raised the following questions of law:

“a) Whether the period of probation is required to be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pension, in terms of SBI Employees Pension Fund Rules?

b) Whether eligibility of an employee for pension is to be seen in the light of Rule 7, Rule 20 and Rule 22.

c) Whether temporary service prior to the date of confirmation is to be reckoned as service for pension keeping in view Rule 7 r/w Rule 20 of the SBI Pension Fund Rules?

d) Whether the Hon'ble High Court is justified in issuing directions contrary to the statutory SBI Employees Pension Fund Rules which have been framed in exercise of the powers confers by Section 50 of the SBI Act, 1955? e) Whether the High Court has correctly interpreted Rule 7 of the Pension Fund Rules?

f) Whether the direction given by the Hon'ble High Court to pay pension to the respondent is valid and justified, the same being contrary to statutory rules?”

6.The learned Senior Counsel would fairly submit that the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court even in the admission stage on 16.02.2015. However, he would take us to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court where liberty has been granted as in, leaving the questions of law raised by the Bank open. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit that sin