IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :August 26, 2025 State Bank of India ……..Appellant Vs Dhanpat Singh(since deceased) through legal representatives and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present : Mr. Anil Kumar Ahuja, Advocate for the appellant.

****

ROHIT KAPOOR , J.

CM-4441-LPA-2025

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 15 days in filing the accompanying appeal is condoned.

LPA-1821-2025

3. The appellant-bank has filed the present appeal being aggrieved from the judgment and order dated 24.02.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.14543-2000, whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1-petitioner (since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs), has been allowed. The challenge in the writ petition was to the order dated 14.02.2000, passed by the appellant-bank, wherein the claim of respondent No.1-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’)for granting all pensionary benefits was rejected on the ground that he had not put in the minimum pensionable service of 10 years upto the age of 58 years. 4. Learned Single Judge while setting aside the said order directed the appellant to compute the pensionary benefits as admissible to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order and to release the same within two months thereafter alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date, it became due.

5. Shorn off unnecessary details, the brief facts that are required to be noticed are, that the petitioner was employed as a guard with the appellant bank on temporary basis on 14.12.1989 and was confirmed on the said post w.e.f. 14.06.1990. The date of birth of the petitioner was 05.05.1940 and accordingly he attained the age of 58 years on 05.05.1998. A policy decision was taken by the appellant bank to increase the age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. In terms of the said policy, the petitioner was granted extension in service for a period of two years and he eventually superannuated on 31.05.2000, after attaining the age of 60 years. He applied for grant of pension for the period w.e.f. 14.12.1989 to 31.05.2000 but his request was declined by the appellant bank vide order dated 14.02.2000 on the ground that he has put only 07 years 10 months and 21 day of pensionable service upto the age of 58 years, and therefore he is not entitled for pension as per the Pension Fund Rules, which mandate that

10 years of service is required to be competed till the age of 58 years.

6. Learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions and specific pleadings of the parties, allowed the petition in terms of its findings, which are extracted as under:-

“Having considered the entire material on record, I am of the opinion that undisputedly, the petitioner was appointed on 14.12.1989 followed by his confirmation on 14.06.1990. The specific pleading of the petitioner that he became a member of the pension fund from the date of his appointment remains undisputed. In such an eventuality, respondents cannot contend that clause 532 (a) would be applicable and the petitioner would be deemed to be a member of the fund from the date of confirmation. The said argument thus would be contrary to the pleadings made and thus cannot be accepted. The argument raised beyond pleading cannot be accepted and petitioner cannot be put to prove, what is not in dispute.

It is further noticed by this Court that even the issuance of Policy decision on 29.05.1998 is also not disputed. Notwithstanding the submission by the respondents that the petitioner was not eligible for such an extension, however, it remains undisputed that the petitioner actually availed the benefit of extension by two years of ser