Madras High Court
S.Chockalingam vs Union Bank Of India on 5 June, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.(MD) No.321 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
W.A.(MD) No.321 of 2019
S.Chockalingam ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Union Bank of India
rep.by its Chairman and
Managing Director
Union Bank Bhawan
239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg
Nariman Point
Mumbai-400 021
2.M/s.Indian Bank Association
represented by Chairman
World Trade Centre, 6th Floor
Centre I Building
World Trade Centre Complex
Cuffe Parade
Mumbai-400 005
3.M/s.All India Bank Officers
Confederation (AIBOC)
represented by its General Secretary
6th Floor, E Block, Samridhi Bhavan
1st Strand Road
Kolkata-700 001 ... Respondents
____________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 05:52:09 pm )
W.A.(MD) No.321 of 2019
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 03.12.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) No.23839 of 2018, on the file of
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Ravi Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.N.Dilip Kumar
Standing Counsel for R1
No appearance for R2
R3 – Not ready notice
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
Under assail is the writ order dated 03.12.2018 passed in W.P.
(MD) No.23839 of 2018.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The writ
proceedings have been instituted seeing a direction to the second respondent
to issue suitable guidelines to the first respondent to follow the Union Bank of
India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, and to delink the concept of 33
years for full pension and render equitable justice for providing the benefit of
Regulation 26(b) of the said Pension Regulations, 1995, to the appellant from
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 05:52:09 pm )
February, 2006 by reworking his pension, as eligible full pension multiplied by
32 and divided by 33 (full pension x 32/33) and continue to pay the same with
applicable dearness allowance increased from time to time along with 12% on
the arrears of his pension.
3. The appellant herein served in the Indian Air Force for fifteen
years. Admittedly, now, he is receiving defence pension from the Government
of India. He joined in the first respondent – Bank under the ex-servicemen
quota at the age of 33 years. It is not in dispute that the upper age limit fixed
for appointment in the first respondent – Bank during the relevant point of
time was 28 years. Though the appellant was overaged, he was appointed at
the age of 33 years under the ex-servicemen quota. He was allowed to retire
from service of the first respondent – Bank in the year 2006 as Senior
Manager. He has rendered 27 years of service in the first respondent – Bank.
The eligibility criteria for getting full pension under the Pension Regulations,
1995, is 33 years of qualifying service. Since the appellant has not completed
the qualifying service period of 33 years, his pension was calculated for the
actual service period of 27 years rendered by him in the first respondent –
Bank.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 05:52:09 pm )
4. Mr.R.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, would
mainly contend that the benefit of full pension is to be extended to the
appellant under Regulation 26(b) of the Union Bank of India (Employees)
Pension Regulations, 1995, applicable to the first respondent – Bank.
5. Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the first
respondent – Bank, would oppose by stating that the appellant, since receiving
defence pension from the Government of India, is not entitled for reckoning
the period of service rendered by him in the Indian Air Force as a qualifying
period of service for grant of pension under the Union Bank of India
(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.
6. Once the period of qualifying service is calculated for grant of
defence pension, the very same period of service cannot once again be
reckoned for grant of bank pension. It will result in unjust gain to the
individual, since the employee is entitled to get pension for the period of
qualifying service rendered by him in a particular establishment. No doubt, if
the defence service period is not reckoned as a qualifying service period or the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 05:52:09 pm )
ex-serviceman is not eligible to draw defence pension on account of ineligibility
under the Central Pension Rules, then those service may be reckoned, if the
Pension Regulations of the respondent – Bank permits.
7. Let us now examine the Union Bank of India (Employees)
Pension Regulations, 1995. Regulation 24 speaks about “Military Service”. As
per Regulation 24, an employee, who has rendered military service before
appointment in the bank, shall continue to draw the military pension, if any,
and military service rendered by the employee shall not be counted as
qualifying service for pension.
8. In view of Regulation 24, the appellant is not eligible for
counting of his defence service for grant of bank pension. When there is an
explicit bar for counting of the defence service for grant of bank pension under
the Union Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, the appellant
is not entitled to avail the benefit under Regulation 26(b) of the Pension
Regulations, 1995.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 05:52:09 pm )
9. Regulation 26(b) of the Union Bank of India (Employees)
Pension Regulations, 1995, reads as under:
“26. Addition to qualifying service in special
circumstances – An employee shall be eligible to add to his
service qualifying for superannuation pension (but not for
any other class of pension) the actual period not exceeding
one fourth of the length of his service of the actual period
by which his age at the time of recruitment exceeded the
upper age limit specified by the Bank for direct recruitment
or a period of five years, whichever is less, if the service or
post to which the employee is appointed is one -
(a) ...
(b) to which candidates of age exceeding the upper
age limit specified for direct recruitment are normally
recruited.”
10. The case of the appellant would not fall under Regulation 26
of the Union Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, in view of
the express bar contemplated under Regulation 24 of the Union Bank of India
(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. It is not in dispute that the appellant
is receiving defence pension for the service rendered by him in the Indian Air
Force. Therefore, the said services are again cannot be reckoned as qualifying
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 05:52:09 pm )
service period along with the bank service for the purpose of grant of full
pension. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed under the ex-servicemen
category at the age of 33 years, though the upper age limit for appointment in
the first respondent – Bank was 28 years. That being the factum, we do not
find any reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge
dismissing the writ petition.
11. Accordingly, the writ order dated 03.12.2018, passed in W.P.
(MD) No.23839 of 2018, is confirmed and this writ appeal stands dismissed.
No costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [A.D.M.C., J.]
05.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 05:52:09 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
krk
05.06.2025
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/06/2025 05:52:09 pm )
