Bisweswar Bal @APPELLANT@Hash Chairman, State Bank of India and Others

Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.

The petitioner was an employee of the State Bank of India (the Bank, for short). He retired on March 31, 1994 after putting in a service for 20 years

2 months 29 days. The Employees’ Pension Fund Rules of the State Bank of India which was originally promulgated in the year 1965 has been

superseded by the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Regulations, 2014 (the Regulations, for short).

According to the petitioner the pension payable under Regulation 22 (2) and (3) shall be the amount calculated at the rate of one-sixtieth part of every

year’s pensionable service of the average monthly substantive salary drawn during the last 12 months’ pensionable service provided that the

maximum amount of pension shall not exceed 50% of the average monthly substantive salary drawn during the last 12 months or Rs. 2,400/- per

month. It has been further provided that the maximum amount of pension shall be increased for the members who retired or retires on or after

November 1, 1993 from Rs. 2,400/- per month to Rs. 4,200/-per month after adjustment of Dearness Allowance on the basic pay.

The petitioner retired with the average monthly salary for pension computation at Rs. 6,131/- and the amount of pension was fixed at Rs. 2,061/-. The

Regulations have undergone further amendment in the year 2017. In terms of the amendment of Regulation 23(2), it has been clearly stated that the

average monthly substantive salary where drawn during the last 12 months’ pensionable service is upto Rs. 8,500/- per month, the member of the

pension fund shall be entitled to 50% of the average of monthly substantive salary drawn during the last 12 months’ pensionable service.

The petitioner in terms of the amended notification prayed for 50% of the average monthly substantive salary drawn during the last 12 months’

pensionable service before the authority but they failed to produce any effective result.

The petitioner also served a legal notice. The Assistant General Manager, i.e., the respondent no. 3, by a communication, dated March 15, 2018 has

denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that as per the notification pension amount of the petitioner will be 50% of the average basic of the last

12 months’ salary upto the amount of Rs. 8,500/-. But there is no mention of the fact that pension amount not only depends on the salary but also

on the length of service too. The respondents have given two calculations. One is as per Regulation 23(1) which brings the pensionable amount to Rs.

2,061/- after rounding off and the other as per Regulation 23(2) which makes the pension receivable as Rs. 3,061/-. But the pension admissible is

lower of the two calculations which is why it has been fixed at Rs. 2,061/- in the case.

By this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, particularly, the respondent no.

3 to rescind and recall the letter, dated March 15, 2018 and allow the petitioner to draw a pension at the rate of 50% of the average monthly

substantive salary drawn during the last 12 months’ pensionable service and for other reliefs.

The Bank authorities have filed a report in the form of an affidavit affirmed by the respondent no. 3. There is not much factual dispute with regard to

the average monthly pension of the petitioner during the last 12 months of his pensionable service or the method of the calculation.

However, the respondents say that the petitioner retired after completing 20 years 2 months’ service as the fraction of any month is not to be

taken into consideration. In terms of the relevant Regulations, the total qualifying service of the petitioner has been 242 months and the average

monthly pension of the petitioner has been rightly calculated at Rs. 2,061/- after rounding off. The petitioner might have got 50% of the pension if he

had completed 30 years of pensionable service. The respondents have specifically stated that pension is calculated both on the length of service and

also on 50% of the average salary which is the highest amount of pension. The payable amount is always the lower of the two calculated amounts.

Thus, if the pension calculation is less than 50% of the average salary, the petitioner will be eligible for the pension only for the lesser amount. The

respondents say that the provisions of the amended proviso ought to be read with the substantive provision.

The Regulations have been annexed to the writ petition. Regulation 22 deals with the entitlement of pension and Regulation 23 with the procedure for

calculation thereof. Rule 22 provides for a minimum service period to be entitled to for pension while 50% of the average salary for the last 12

months’ of service is the maximum that one may receive as pension. It is a settled proposition of service jurisprudence that fixation of pension is

connected with the length of service of an employee in an organization.

Mr. Sinha, the learned Advocate for the Bank, clarified that the communication in the letter, dated March 15, 2018 that there is no mention of the fact

that pension not only depends on the salary but also on the length of service, is the result of a typographical mistake. This is far too obvious. Otherwise

Regulation 22 would have been rendered entirely meaningless.

It is an admitted position that the petitioner had put in 20 years 2 months service i.e., for 242 months. The respondents have calculated it on the

principle provided in Regulation 23 after taking into consideration the last average pay of 12 months and the length of service whichever is lower. The

petitioner did not question the fixation of the amount of pension at Rs. 2,061/- .

Now he claims that it should be enhanced to Rs. 3,061/-without taking into consideration that in order to be entitled to the maximum amount of pension

at the rate of 50% of the average of 12 months’ salary, he was required to render 30 years’ service. 50% of the average pay of the last 12

months’ will not be sufficient for the pension he seeks. Pension being contingent upon the length of service as well he cannot succeed in his

prayer when his length of service was barely more than the minimum pensionable service and fell short of the length of service entitling an employee

to get the maximum pension.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no impropriety on the part of the respondents in computing the pension of the petitioner. The writ petition calls for no

intervention. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied

to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.