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 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.
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 service-
(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 pensionable service
irrespective of 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 pension.
(iii) 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.
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 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
discrimination arises.
This appeal is disposed of . No costs.