Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
ARIKARAVULA SANYASI RAJU
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA VISAKHAPATNAM (A.P)
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This 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.
The admitted position is that while the appellant was
working as an officer in JMG Scale-I, an enquiry was held
and he was removed from the service on the finding of
misconduct recorded by order 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.
The appellant placed reliance on Rule 22 of the State
Bank of India Services Rules which reads as under |
"22.(i) A member shall be entitled to
a pension under these rules on
retiring from the Bank’s years-
a) After having completed twenty
years’ pensionable service provided
that he has attained the age of
fifty 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 retirement by approved medical
certificate or otherwise that he is
in capacitated for further active
service;
c) After having completed twenty
years the age he shall have
attained at his request in writing.
d) After twenty five years’
pensionable service.
(ii) A member who has attained the
age of fifty five or who shall be
proved to the satisfaction of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
authority empowered to sanction his
retirement to be permanently
incapacitated by bodily service
(such infirmity not being the
result of irregular or intemperate
habits) may, at the discretion of
the trustees, be granted a
proportionate pension.
(iii) A member who has been
permitted to retire under clauses 1
(c) above shall be entitled to
proportionate pension."
It was contended that under Clause 22(i)(b), because of
the removal from service he was incapacitated for further
active service he is entitled to the pension. The High Court
rightly had not accepted the said contention. It is 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. removal 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 sought 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 misconduct, was given the benefit
of 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 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 the
service for misconduct. Under these circumstances, 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
discrimination arises.
The appeal is disposed of. No costs.