K.G. Seshadri vs The Trustees Of State Bank Of India And Another

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J

Leave granted.

This  Appeal  is  directed  against  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  dated 27.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A No.1065 of 2022, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.

FACTUAL MATRIX

The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-Bank and the same was confirmed after the probation period of six months i.e., from 17.02.1979  till  12.12.1998. The  appellant  ceased  to  be  in  the  job  and  left  for abroad in the year 1989. After returning in the year 2004, he gave a letter to re- join  the  service. However,  the  respondent-Bank  turned  down  the  said  request and, vide letter dated 21.07.2008, the respondent-Bank declared that the appellant has been voluntarily retired.

Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  letter  dated  21.07.2008,  the  appellant  filed  a writ petition being  W.P. No.19002 of 2008 before the High  Court  of Judicature at Madras. On 21.04.2009, the High Court orally directed the appellant to withdraw the case and approach the Labour Court.

Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the appellant approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court “Labour Court”, Chennai, by filing a  claim  petition  being  CP  No.5  of  2010  under  Section  33C(2)  of  the  Industrial Disputes  Act,  1947 “the ID Act”   and  prayed  the  Labour  Court  to  compute  the  appellant’s pension  benefits  @ Rs.8,11,770/-  along  with  interest. The  Labour  Court  vide order dated 24.09.2010 dismissed the claim petition by observing that it had no jurisdiction and competence to decide the case, since the present case was not relating to any pre-existing right  under  pension rules, and,  hence, it could not adjudicate the issue raised therein as per ID Act or under the SBI Pension Rules.

The appellant once again approached the High Court by way of a writ petition being W.P No.25597 of 2010. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 05.11.2019  concluded that  the appellant  could  not  establish  any  pre-existing right with reference to the eligibility conditions prescribed under the pension scheme  and  confirmed  the  findings  of  the  Labour  Court  inter  alia  holding  that since the eligibility and other terms and  conditions for grant  of pension are all disputed facts, the claim petition filed by the appellant could not have been entertained by the Labour Court.

Aggrieved  by  the  aforesaid  order  dated  05.11.2019  of  the  learned  Single Judge, the appellant filed W.A. No.1065 of 2022 before the Division Bench of the High  Court. The  Division  Bench  vide  its  impugned  judgment  and  order  dated 27.04.2022 dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge taking into consideration the limited jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and that the claim of pensionary benefits was disputed by the respondent(s) by a reasoned order and the challenge to it by the writ petition was not pressed by the appellant and was rather withdrawn.

SUBMISSIONS

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that appellant has completed 20 years and 3 months and 25 days of service from date of appointment/date of confirmation and, hence, he was entitled to pension as per  the  Pension  Fund  Rules,  more  specifically  under  Rule  22(i)(c)  of  the  State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955 “Pension Fund Rules”.

Additionally, it was argued that the respondent-Bank denied the legitimate pension by deliberate misinterpretation of Pension Fund Rules by not applying Rule 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules, which states completion of 20 years’ service, irrespective of age, the respondent-Bank is said to have approbated and reprobated in their counter affidavit that the appellant has been declared under Voluntary Cessation, but deny legitimate pension, by erroneously applying the incorrect Rule 22(i)(a), instead of 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules. 10. It was submitted that the respondent-Bank, even though a  premier bank of Government of India, failed to notice that a normal Voluntary Retirement Scheme “VRS”was  introduced  in  the  Bank  on  20.09.1986,  after  obtaining  approval from Government of India, Reserve Bank of India and Board of Directors of the Bank. The VRS was open to any employee at all point in time. So, the statement of the respondent-Bank that there was no VRS in existence when the appellant applied for the same is totally false and mischievous.

The appellant has relied on the decisions in Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey 2020 (6) SCC 438 and Rugmini Ganesh w/o Ganesh Raman Iyer vs. State Bank of India Rep. By its Chairperson 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3884 to bolster his submissions.

Per contra,  learned  ASG appearing  for  the  respondent-Bank  would argue that the appellant is not eligible for pension as per the applicable Pension Fund Rules since he has not completed 20 years of qualifying service and neither he has completed 50 years of age. Thus, making him non-entitledfor pension under Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund Rules.

Additionally,  the  learned  ASG  argued  that  the  claim  petition  filed  by  the appellant under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act was not maintainable since such a petition can only be entertained by the Labour Court when there is a pre-existing right.

The respondent-Bank also denies the contentionof the appellant regarding obtaining VRS, since there was no VRS  in operation during  that relevant time. Instead, it is argued that the appellant from 24.01.1998 to 11.12.1998 without informing  and  without  availing  leave  started  remaining  unauthorizedly  absent for a long period. During this period, the respondent-Bank, following the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement, issued notices dated 01.06.1998 and 12.11.1998 calling upon the appellant to report for work and explain his unauthorized absence. As the appellant failed to report for duty, he was declared to have voluntarily abandoned his services from 12.12.1998. During this time, it is argued on behalf of the respondent(s) that the appellant had been in employment abroad and was residing there. Thus, this was not a case of voluntary  retirement,  but  of  voluntary  abandonment  of  services  on  part  of  the appellant.

To bolster the submissions, the respondent-Bank has relied on the decision in Municipal  Corporation  of  Delhi  vs.  Ganesh  Razak  & Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 235  and Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam (A.P) and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 256.

The rival submissions now fall for our consideration.

ANALYSIS

At the outset, we make it clear that though the Labour Court and the High Court have dismissed the case of the appellant on the technical ground of non- maintainability of the petition under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, primarily since the proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act are in the nature of execution proceedings and, since in the present case, the issue of the grant of the pension to the appellant cannot be held to be a pre-existing right, as the same was disputed by the respondent-Bank, both, the Labour Court and High Court, decided to dismiss the case of the appellant at the threshold. However, we have decided to proceed with the case on its merits.

The primary question that arises for our adjudication is that whether the appellant  is  entitled  for  pensionary  benefits  keeping  in  view  the  Pension  Fund Rules.

Employee’s  pension  rights  are  crystallized  under  Rule  22  of  the  Pension Fund Rules. The said rule reads as under:

"22. Minimum service for pension- (i) A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the Bank's service-

a) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after the 1.11.1993, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.05.1998, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty years;

(b) After having completed twenty years' pensionable service, irrespective  of  the  age  he  shall have  attained,  if  he  shall  satisfy  the authority competent to sanction his retirementby approved medical certificate or otherwise that he is incapacitated for further active service;

(c) after having completed twenty years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at his requestin writing.

(d) after twenty five years' pensionable service.”

(emphasis supplied)

The reckoning of pensionable service has to be determined in accordance with Rule 20 read with Rule 7 of the Pension Fund Rules which read as follows:

"20. Save as provided in rule 21, with effect from 1.11.93, service rendered by an employee/member from the date of his admission to the fund upto the date of retirement in terms of rule 22 infra from the Bank's service shall be reckoned as service for pension.

Rule 7 of the Rules

Save as provided in rule 8, every permanent employee (including a permanent part-time employee who is required by the Bank to work for more than six hours a week)  in  the  service  of  the  Bank, who is entitled to pension benefits under the terms and conditions of his service shall become a member of the Fund from-

(a)  the  date  from  which  he  is  confirmed in  the  service  of  the Bank, or

(b) the date from which he may be required to become a member of the Fund under the terms and conditions of his service.”

(emphasis supplied)

The appellant has primarily placed reliance upon Rule 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules to claim entitlement to pensionary benefits, whereas the respondent(s) has contended, by placing reliance on Rule 22(i)(a), that the appellant does not fulfil the conditions prescribed therein and is, therefore, not entitled  to  pension. In  view  of  the  rival submissions,  it  becomes  necessary  for this Court to examine the scope and applicability of Rule 22(i)(c) and Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund Rules.

ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR PENSION UNDER RULE 22(i)(c) OF THE PENSION FUND RULES

Primarily  in  order  for  the appellant  to be  eligible  for the  pension  under Rule 22(i)(c) following two conditions are required to be satisfied: The employee should  have  completed  twenty  years  of pensionable  service,  irrespective  of the age, he shall have attained at his request in writing.

It is the case of the  appellant that he completed 20 years, 3 months and 25 days, as on 12.12.1998, i.e. from the date of appointment being 17.08.1978, to the date of deemed voluntary retirement being 12.12.1998. However, the record of the case clearly shows that the appointment of the appellant was confirmed  on  17.02.1979  and  he  was  declared  to  have  voluntarily  abandoned his services from 12.12.1998.

Additionally, a  reading of Rule 20 along with Rule 7 of the Pension Fund Rules would make it clear that service for the purpose of pension is to be reckoned from the date of the employee’s admission to the fund wherein the employee shall become the member of the fund from the date on which he was confirmed in the service of the Bank. Thus, if we calculate the total period of the service rendered by the appellant, after completion of probation, it would come down to less than 20 years i.e., 19 years, 09 months and 25 days. Thus, the first condition of the appellant having completed 20 years in service is not-fulfilled.

VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OR VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT OF SERVICES?

The second condition that needs to be fulfilled is that the appellant must have obtained voluntary retirement from services of the respondent-Bank. However, looking at the record of the case, we have noticed that the present case is not of voluntary retirement, rather of voluntary abandonment of the services, wherein  from  24.01.1998  to  11.12.1998,  the  appellant,  without  informing  and availing leave, started remaining absent for a long time after which the respondent-Bank issued notices dated 01.06.1998 and 12.11.1998 calling upon the appellant to explain his absence.

After receiving a non-satisfactory reply, services of the appellant were declared to have been voluntarily abandoned. Hence, the reliance placed by the appellant on Rule 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules is completely misplaced.

The  appellant  has  relied  on  Radhey  Shyam  Pandey  (supra)  to  contend that since pension is a pre-existing right under the Pension Fund Rules, voluntary cessation of service should be treated at par with voluntary retirement. This submission, however, in our view, seems to be completely misplaced as in Radhey Shyam Pandey (supra), this Court was concerned with employees who had undisputedly retired under a recognized Voluntary Retirement Scheme, and the controversy was limited to the interpretation of pension rules and the extent of qualifying service. The entitlement to pension itself was not in dispute, and, therefore, the Court proceeded to interpret the scheme in favour of granting benefits.

In contrast, in the present case, the very foundation of the appellant’s claim, namely, his entitlement to pension, is seriously disputed by the respondent-Bank, particularly with respect to the fact that his case is not of voluntary retirement, rather of voluntary abandonment of service on part of the appellant.

ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR PENSION UNDER RULE 22(i)(a) OF THE PENSION FUND RULES

Since the respondent-Bank has submitted that the appropriate rule under which the appellant’s case falls is Rule 22(i)(a) and not Rule 22(i)(c), we shall now examine  whether  the  appellant  is  entitled  to  pension  under Rule  22(i)(a)  of  the Pension Fund Rules.

The two conditions that are required to be fulfilled  are that the appellant must have completed twenty years of pensionable service provided that he attained the age of fifty years during the relevant time. Since we have already held that the total service years of the appellant is less than 20 years, the first condition  remains  unfulfilled. That  apart,  it  is  an  admitted  position  on  record that the appellant had not attained the age of 50 years as on the date of cessation of service. Therefore, the mandatory condition relating to attainment of the prescribed age under Rule 22(i)(a) also remains unfulfilled. In view of the non- satisfaction of both  the essential conditions, namely, completion of  20 years of qualifying service and attainment of 50 years of age, the appellant is clearly not entitled to claim pension under Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund Rules.

The  appellant  has  relied  on  the  decision  in  Rugmini  Ganesh (supra) to submit  that  the  probation  period  during  the  appellant’s  service  should  also  be counted for calculating his pensionable service. It is important to note that Rugmini Ganesh (supra) dealt with the limited question of computation of qualifying service, including whether pre-confirmation service could be counted, in a situation where the employee’s entitlement to pension was already recognized. It did not address a case where entitlement itself was in issue. Also, in Rugmini Ganesh (supra), the employee’s service record was not fundamentally disputed and the issue was confined only to the interpretation of the  service  rules. In  the  present  case,  even  if  we  for  argument’s  sake  agree  to the  submission  of  the  appellant  and  include  the  probation  period  to  calculate the pensionable service, he would still not be eligible as he had not attained the requisite 50 years of age at the relevant time. Hence, making the appellant ineligible under Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund Rules.

CONCLUSION

In  view  of  the  above  discussion,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  appellant cannot be said to be eligible for pension under the Pension Fund Rules considering that he has not completed 20 years of service nor had attained the age of 50 years, hence, making him ineligible under Rule 22(i)(a). Also, the appellant’s case cannot be said to fall under Rule 22(i)(c) since the appellant was never  granted  VRS,  instead  his  services  were  declared  to  have  been  voluntary abandoned. Keeping in view that the case of the appellant does not fall in either of  the  above-stated  Rules,  this  Appeal  deserves  to  be  dismissed. The  same  is, accordingly, dismissed.