Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2904 of 2008
PETITIONER:
B.L. Arora
RESPONDENT:
Chairman and Managing Director,Syndicate Bank
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/04/2008
BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
REPORTABLE
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2904 OF 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.8026 of 2006)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ
petition filed by the appellant.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
Appellant joined Short Service Commission in the Indian
Army. There was an advertisement issued by the respondent-
Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as the ’Bank’) inviting
applications for the posts of Junior Officers. Out of the total
number of posts, 25% posts were reserved for Ex. Emergency
Commissioned Officers/Short Service Commissioned Officers.
Appellant appeared in the written test and was declared
qualified. He joined the Bank on 29.3.1976 on being released
from armed forces. For the purpose of fixation of pay and
promotion service, rendered by the appellant in armed forces
was taken into consideration in view of certain government
instructions. Appellant opted for voluntary retirement in the
year 2001 in view of a scheme framed by the Bank. Appellant
thereafter made a claim that the period of military service
should be taken into account for fixation of pension
computation and gratuity. The claim was turned down by the
Bank in view of Regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank
(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (in short the
"Regulations"). The appellant took the stand that in view of the
Government of India’s instructions dated 10th November,
1986, the period of military service should be included for the
purpose of computing the pension. The High Court dismissed
the writ petition holding that the benefit of earlier army service
in terms of Rule 6 of The Released Emergency Commissioned
Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation
on Vacancies) Rules, 1971 (in short ’Rules’) and Memorandum
dated 21.9.1993 are restricted to the limited purpose of
seniority and pay fixation.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
4. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stands
taken before the High Court. It was submitted that there was
no reason or basis to exclude military service while computing
the entitlement of pension when such period of service was
counted for the purpose of seniority and scale of pay.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
submitted that in view of the clear stipulation in Regulation 24
the claim made by the appellant is clearly unacceptable.
6. Regulation 24 reads as follows:
"24. MILITARY SERVICE:
An employee who has rendered military service
before appointment in the Bank shall continue
to draw the military pension, if any, and
military service rendered by the employee shall
not count as qualifying service for pension."
7. A bare reading of Regulation 24 makes it clear that an
employee is entitled to the benefit of military pension, if any,
but the military service is not to be counted as qualifying
service for pension. Stand of the appellant is that because the
appellant was serving as short commissioned officer he is not
entitled to the military pension. That in no way makes the
position better. The object of Regulation 24 is clear that the
benefit is available for rendering service in the military has to
be obtained from the army, if he is entitled to it. The decision
in State Bank of India v. D. Hanumantha Rao and Anr. (1998
(6) SCC 183) on which strong reliance is placed is of no
assistance to the appellant. The judgment was rendered in a
different factual scenario. Stand of the appellant is that the
government in various memoranda extended service benefit in
the matter of pay fixation and seniority. Reference is made to
the communication of the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Banking Division
No.9/20/69-ECTT (C) dt. 26.8.1971 and F.No.10/47/86-
SCT(B) dt. 10.11.1986.
8. A bare reading of these communications goes to show
that they relate to only pay fixation and seniority and do not
throw any light on the pension aspect. It is submitted that at
the relevant point of time the pension scheme was not in
vogue in the Bank. If any benefit was intended in the matter
of pension as claimed that could have been clearly spelt out in
an appropriate office memorandum or circular. That has not
been done. Therefore, the plea advanced has no substance.
9. Looked at from any angle the appeal is sans merit,
deserves dismissal, which we direct.
10. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.