Sanyasi Raju Vs. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam (A.P)  INSC 1436 (18 November 1996)
O R D
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court, made on April 26, 1996 in Writ Appeal No.203.96 confirming
the judgment of the learned single Judge.
admitted position is that while the appellant was working as an officer in JMG
Scale-I, an enquiry was held and he was removed form service on the finding of
misconduct recorded by order by dated May 25, 1990. He filed the writ petition
claiming payment of Provident Fund and pension. The learned single Judge
directed payment of the Provident Fund in terms of the Rule but denied the
relief of pension. That was confirmed by the Division Bench.
appellant placed reliance on Rule 22 of the State Bank of India Services Rules
which reads as under:
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;
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 retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise that he is
in capacitated for further active service;
After having completed twenty years pensionable service irrespective of the age
he shall have attained at his request in writing.
After twenty five years' pensionable service.
member who has attained the age of fifty five or who shall be proved to the
satisfaction of the authority empowered to sanction his retirement to be
permanently incapacitated by bodily or mental infirmity from further active
service (such infirmity not being the result of irregular or intemperate
habits) may, at the discretion of the trustees, be granted a proportionate
A member who has been permitted to retire under clause (1(c) above shall be
entitled to proportionate pension." It was contended that under Clause 22(i)(b),
because of the removal from service and he is entitled to the pension.
High Court rightly had not accepted the said contention.
seen that on medical grounds or any of the enumerated grounds if he had sought
retirement on that basis and allowed to retire from service, he would be
entitled to pension on completion of 20 years of pensionable service.
from service for misconduct cannot be considered to be incapacitation for
rendering the service and Clause 22(i)(b) does not apply to pension. It is then
seriously contended by Shri Sampath, learned counsel for the appellant, that
since he has completed 20 years of pensionable service, irrespective of
removal, he is entitled to the pension under clause (c) thereof. In support
thereof, he sough to place reliance on a clarification issued by the Bank in
their letter dated February 11, 1985 stating that removal from service entitled
him to pension as is available to the other retired persons. He also further
contended that one Mr. C.C.M. Nambiar, who was similarly situated and removed
from service for service for misconduct, was given the benefit on the said
advice. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit. We cannot
accept the said contention as correct. Clause 22(i)(c) envisages only that
after completing 20 years of pensionable service, if an incumbent retired at
his request in writing and was permitted to retire, he would be entitled to
pension. In other words, for voluntary retirement, on completion of 20 years of
pensionable service, clause (c) of Rule 22(1) gets attracted. It does not apply
to officer who was removed from service for misconduct. Under these
circumstance, the High Court has not committed any error of law warranting
interference. Merely because, on a wrong advice, another employee was given
pension after removal from service, the same cannot be made a ground under
Article 14 to perpetuate the same mistake. So, Article 14 does not apply and no
appeal is disposed of. No costs.