Full Judgment Text
$~81
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 19.03.2025
+ W.P.(C) 3395/2025, CM APPL. 16059/2025 & CM APPL.
16060/2025
AJAY KUMAR MALIK THROUGH S.P.A. HOLDER ADARSH
MALIK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pulkit Prakash, Mr. Arjun
Mohan, Mr. Chirantan Krishna and
Ms. Arushi Sharma, Advocates.
versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, SC for SBI, Mr.
Akshit Kapur and Ms. Riya Sood,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner challenged an order dated 10.09.2024, by which the
respondent – State Bank of India [“the Bank”] rejected his representation
dated 03.09.2024, with regard to calculation of his period of service for
the purpose of pension.
2. The petitioner was employed in the Bank as a Clerk on 13.06.1977,
and was subsequently promoted to Junior Management Grade Scale – I as
an Officer. Pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, a penalty of compulsory
retirement was imposed upon him by order dated 27.05.2003. The
Disciplinary Order was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on
11.02.2004, and the Reviewing Authority on 03.02.2005.
3. The petitioner’s first writ petition, in this regard, was W.P.(C)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHITU NAGPAL
Signing Date:21.03.2025
19:31:33
W.P.(C) 3395/2025 Page 1 of 6
10973/2006, in which he challenged the disciplinary proceedings, and
also sought a direction permitting him to continue in service until the age
of superannuation with all service benefits. By order dated 14.07.2006,
notice was issued, limited to the question as to whether the petitioner was
entitled to retiral benefits consequent upon the punishment of compulsory
retirement. The writ petition was disposed of on 06.07.2022, setting aside
an order dated 30.05.2005, by which the Bank had rejected his request for
pension, and permitting him to file a detailed representation. His
representation dated 18.07.2022 was rejected by order dated 05.09.2022.
4. Against the order dated 05.09.2022, the petitioner filed the second
writ petition, being W.P.(C) 2576/2023, in which he also sought a
direction for the release of terminal benefits.
5. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a judgment dated
1
18.07.2024 , upholding the decision of the Bank, declining pensionary
benefits to the petitioner for want of pensionable service of 25 years.
However, in view of the Court’s conclusion that the petitioner was short
by less than three months in completing the pensionable service, the
petitioner was permitted to seek condonation of the balance period, which
would be decided by the Bank in accordance with law.
6. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner submitted a further
representation on 03.09.2024, which has been rejected by the impugned
order dated 10.09.2024.
7. In the representation dated 03.09.2024, as also in the present writ
petition, it is contended by the petitioner that the Bank’s computation of
his pensionable service, at less than 25 years, is incorrect, and that he has,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHITU NAGPAL
Signing Date:21.03.2025
19:31:33
W.P.(C) 3395/2025 Page 2 of 6
in fact, put in more than 25 years of pensionable service.
8. I am of the view that this contention is no longer open to the
petitioner, as the very same argument has been adjudicated in the
judgment dated 18.07.2024, which has attained finality. The following
observations in the said judgment are relevant in the present case:
“3. Subsequent thereto, Petitioner requested the Bank vide letter dated
10.05.2005 for grant of pension, which request was declined vide letter
dated 30.05.2005 on the ground that as per State Bank of India
Employees’ Pension Fund Rules (‘Pension Rules’), pension is payable
to an employee only after completion of 25 years of pensionable
service or 20 years of pensionable service and attainment of age of 50
years and since on the date of Compulsory Retirement, Petitioner’s
total service was only 24 years, 9 months and 3 days and his age was
less than 50 years, he was not entitled to pension.
xxx xxx xxx
9. Petitioner was working as an Officer JMGS-I Grade with SBI from
the year 1999 at Radha Kund Branch, Mathura and was In-charge of
the Extension Counter. Charge-sheet was issued against the Petitioner
on 22.03.2002 and the disciplinary proceedings culminated into a
penalty of ‘Compulsory Retirement’ on 27.05.2003 under Rule 67(h) of
1992 Rules. The appeal and the review application preferred by the
Petitioner against the penalty order were rejected. On the date of
Compulsory Retirement, Petitioner had completed 24 years, 9 months
and 3 days’ service and his age was less than 50 years, facts which
are undisputed.
xxx xxx xxx
12. At this stage, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
Petitioner had completed 24 years, 9 months and 3 days of actual
physical service with the SBI and had he not taken EOL for 243 days
on loss of pay, he would have had the requisite pensionable service
and therefore, it is iniquitous to deny him pension with a shortfall of
less than three months to complete pensionable service of 25 years. It
is urged that being a hard case, direction be issued to SBI to consider
waiver of the balance period of less than three months.
13. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is unable to find any
infirmity in the impugned decision of SBI declining pensionary
benefits to the Petitioner for want of pensionable service of 25 years
1
A.K. Malik v. State Bank of India & Ors ., [W.P.(C) 2576/2023].
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHITU NAGPAL
Signing Date:21.03.2025
19:31:33
W.P.(C) 3395/2025 Page 3 of 6
and the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
However, in the facts of this case, where Petitioner is short of less than
three months in completing the pensionable service, it is open to the
Petitioner to seek condonation of the balance period and if any such
representation is made, Respondents shall consider the same in
accordance with law.
2
14. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”
9. The Court has thus recorded a clear finding that the petitioner had
not completed 25 years of pensionable service, which was the minimum
qualifying service for grant of pension in the case of compulsory
retirement. In the absence of a challenge to the judgment dated
18.07.2024, the petitioner is bound by the finding rendered therein.
10. Mr. Arjun Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the aforesaid issue was not foreclosed by the judgment dated 18.07.2024,
to the extent that the Court granted the petitioner an opportunity to seek
condonation of the balance period before the Bank. I am unable to agree
with this reading of the judgment. The petitioner’s petition was
conclusively dismissed, with a clear finding that the order of the Bank
declining pensionary benefits, was in accordance with law. The
petitioner’s attempt to revisit these findings, as reflected in the
representation and the writ petition is, in my view, wholly misconceived.
The only relief granted to the petitioner, in view of the relatively small
period of shortfall, was an opportunity to seek condonation of the same.
11. It may be noted that the disciplinary proceedings had also attained
finality, as the order dated 06.07.2022 in W.P.(C)10973/2006 only re-
opened the issue of pensionary benefits, and not the validity of the
punishment imposed upon the petitioner.
2
Emphasis supplied.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHITU NAGPAL
Signing Date:21.03.2025
19:31:33
W.P.(C) 3395/2025 Page 4 of 6
12. The only issue open for adjudication, therefore, is whether the
petitioner was entitled to condonation of the period of shortfall in
pensionable service. The impugned order dated 10.09.2024 records that
the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules [“Pension
Rules”] do not provide for any such condonation, or for the grant of
pension to an employee who is not qualified under Rule 22 of the Pension
Rules. It is stated therein that the trustees of the Pension Fund are only
empowered to disburse pension to employees qualified under the Pension
Rules, and no other.
13. Mr. Mohan does not rely upon any provision of the Pension Rules
to assail this finding. Instead, he draws my attention to Rule 69(5) of the
State Bank of Inda Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 [“Service Rules”],
which provides as follows:
“69. (5) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the rules in this
section, the authority competent thereunder may, for good and
sufficient reasons or if sufficient cause is shown, extend the time
specified thereunder for anything required to be done thereunder or
condone any delay.”
14. The Service Rules are divided into various chapters, out of which
Chapter XI, comprising Rules 50 to 70, deals with “ Conduct, Discipline
and Appeal ”. Section 1, entitled “ Conduct ”, deals with the rules of
conduct and various categories of misconduct attributable to an officer.
Section 2, entitled “ Discipline and Appeal ”, deals with the penalties
which may be imposed, the initiation and procedure for disciplinary
action, as well as provisions for suspension. Rule 69, entitled “ Appeal
Against Punishment or Suspension, Review, Service of Order, Extension
of Time Limit, etc ”, is part of Section 2 of Chapter XI.
15. It is evident that Rule 69(5) has been incorporated in the context of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHITU NAGPAL
Signing Date:21.03.2025
19:31:33
W.P.(C) 3395/2025 Page 5 of 6
the provisions for appeal and review. The suggestion that this Rule can
empower the pension trustees to condone shortfall in period of
pensionable service is utterly meritless. The Rule is clearly applicable
only to time limits provided “in this section”, i.e., in Section 2 of Chapter
XI of the Service Rules, which deals with conduct, discipline and appeal.
The Rule cannot be transposed into the Pension Rules, that too, not for
the purpose of extension of time or for condonation of delay in procedural
compliances, but for substantive condonation of a shortfall in the time
spent in service.
16. Absent a power of condonation of shortfall in pensionable service,
the impugned order of the Bank dated 10.09.2024 does not call for
interference by the writ Court.
17. The writ petition, alongwith pending applications, is, therefore,
dismissed.
18. At this stage, Mr. Mohan seeks liberty to challenge the judgment
dated 18.07.2024 by way of appeal or review. No such liberty is required
from this Court; suffice it to state that this judgment is not intended to
foreclose any such remedy, if available to the petitioner. The question of
whether the remedy can be availed of at this length of time, is one the
concerned Court would have to adjudicate, and no observation with
regard thereto, is called for at this stage.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
MARCH 19, 2025
SS/JM/
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHITU NAGPAL
Signing Date:21.03.2025
19:31:33
W.P.(C) 3395/2025 Page 6 of 6