Mrs. Sanyukt Lata vs State Bank of Patiala and Others

Ajay Tewari, J.—The prayer in this writ petition is for grant of pensionary benefits. The husband of the petitioner was an employee of the State Bank of Patiala and he died during service. After his death the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground w.e.f. 05.04.2001 and she joined on 12.04.2001. She retired on 31.12.2010 when she had completed 9 years 8 months and 19 days of service. The claim is being sought to be declined on the strength of Regulations 14 and 15 of the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 and the same are quoted herein below:-

Qualifying Service: Subject to the other conditions contained in these regulations, an employee who had rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank, on the date of his retirement or on the date on which he is deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension. 15. Commencement of qualifying service: Subject to the provisions contained in these regulations, qualifying service of an employee shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed on a permanent basis.

Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in view of these regulations the petitioner could not be considered for pension since she had less than 10 years of service in the bank.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indian Bank and Another Vs. N. Venkatramani, In that case, the respondent had sought voluntary retirement after 14 years 9 months and 17 days of service and as per Regulation the respondent could have entitled for pension had he completed 15 years of service. Apart from this judgment learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Regulation 18 of the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 which is also quoted herein below:-

Broken period of service of less than one year: If the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service is less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored.

It is his argument that the same regulation was in question in the case of India Bank (supra) wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court in para Nos. 9 and 13 has held as follows:-

We may notice that although various provisions have been made providing for qualifying service to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Raju Ramchandran, the manner in which the period of service is to be measured is contained in Regulation 18 of the Regulations which reads as under: -

Broken period of service of less than one year:- If the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored.

It may be true that various provisions of the Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23 etc. provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not controlled by any of the said provisions. It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It only provides for a rule of measurement. An employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was entitled to pension provided he has completed the specified period of service. How such a period of service would be computed is a matter which is governed by the statute. It is one thing to say that a statute provides for completion of fifteen years of minimum service, but if a provision provides for measurement of the period, the same cannot be lost sight of. Provision of the Regulations which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be construed liberally.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in that case also pension was allowed to the employee on the strength of Regulation 18.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to cite any contrary judgment.

With the binding precedent quoted above, this petition is allowed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to pension. The respondents are directed to work out the pensionary dues of the petitioner and release her arrears and pension within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to claim the same with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date the amount''s fell due till the date they are actually paid. Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.