Orissa High Court
Mamatarani Mohanty And Others vs Md(Personnel) on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A.No.138 of 2017
Mamatarani Mohanty and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Sikar Kumar Rath, Advocate
-versus-
MD(Personnel), SBI & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, Advocate
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 09.11.2021
07. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4th May,
2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10677 of
2003. The learned Single Judge denied the prayer of the Appellants',
who were the legal representatives of the deceased employee, on the
ground that he did not satisfy the conditions of eligibility.
2. Rule 19 (1) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules reads
as follows:
"19.(1) An officer shall retire from the service of the
Bank on attaining the age of fifty-eight years or upon
the completion of thirty years' service or thirty
years' pensionable service if he is a member of the
Pension Fund, whichever occurs first.
Provided that the competent authority may, at its
discretion, extend the period of service of an officer
who has a attained the age of fifty-eight years or has
completed thirty years' service or thirty years'
pensionable service as the case may be, should such
extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the
Bank, so however, that the service rendered by the
concerned officer beyond 58 years of age except to
the extent of the period of leave due at that time will
not count for purpose of pension.
Provided further that an officer who had joined the
service of the Bank either as an officer or otherwise
on or after July 19, 1969 and attained the age of 58
years shall not be granted any further extension in
service.
Provided further that an officer may, at the discretion
of the Executive Committee, be retired from the
Bank's service after he has attained 50 years of age
or has completed 25 years' service or 25 years'
pensionable service as the case may be, by giving
him three months' notice in writing or pay in lieu
thereof.
Provided further that an officer who has completed
20 years' service or 20 years' pensionable service, as
the case may be, may be permitted by the competent
authority to retire from the Bank's service, subject to
his giving there month's notice in writing or pay in
lieu thereof unless this requirement is wholly or
partly waived by it."
3. Thus it was in the discretion of the Executive Committee, State
Bank of India ('Bank') to retire an officer from the Bank's service
after his attaining the age of fifty years or after 25 years of service or
pensionable service as the case may be by giving him three months'
notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof. Rule-45 of Chapter-IX of the
Rules, 1992 made it automatic that every officer would become a
member of the State Bank of India Employees' Provident Fund and
the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund, if he is not already a
member and shall subscribe and agree to be bound by the rules of the
said fund.
4. In terms of Rule 7 (a) of the State Bank of India Employees'
Pension Fund Rules, 1955 an employee would be entitled to pension
benefits on becoming a member of the Fund and he would become
such member from which he may be required to become a member of
the Fund. Under Rule 22 (i) he would be entitled pension upon
retirement subject to fulfilling the conditions in sub-clause (a) to (d)
thereunder.
5. As far as the present case is concerned, admittedly, the predecessor-
in-interest of the Appellants i.e. the deceased employee of the Bank,
was appointed as Godown Keeper in the Bank on 2nd December, 1970.
Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Clerk on 22nd
September, 1971. His service was confirmed on 22nd November, 1971.
It is an admitted position that his date of birth was 17th October, 1946.
Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, he was removed from service by
order dated 29th July 1996, which was confirmed in appeal.
6. The learned Single Judge held that the Appellant had been
confirmed in service on 22nd November, 1971 and, therefore, on the
date of his removal from service, he had not completed 25 years of
service. He had completed only 49 years five months 20 days. Further,
going by his date of birth, he was not 50 years of age on that date.
Therefore, it was concluded that under Rule 22(1)(b) the deceased
employee was not eligible for pension.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the date of
confirmation of service i.e. 22nd November, 1971 would relate back to
the date of original appointment of the Petitioner as Godown Keeper
i.e. 2nd December, 1970 and so calculated that he would have
completed 25 years of service and, therefore, he was eligible for
pension.
8. The wording of the Rule in question is very clear that an employee
becomes a member of the service from the date of confirmation. Since
the words used are "the date of confirmation". There is a specific date
on which the employee stood confirmed, i.e. 22nd November, 1971, In
the absence of any express words to the contrary in the Rule in
question, it is not permissible to compute the period of 25 years from
the date of the original appointment i.e. 2nd December, 1970. Further
even on the alternative criteria of age the employee was below 50
years of age on the relevant date.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find any error
in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
10. The appeal is thus dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
R.K. Singh/Jagabandhu
