Essential Conditions Under Pension Fund Rules Not Satisfied: Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of Pension To Bank Clerk Who Voluntarily Abandoned Job
The Supreme Court held that the former employee was not entitled to claim a pension under Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund Rules.
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal of a bank clerk who voluntarily abandoned his job and held that he was not eligible for pension under the Pension Fund Rules, considering that he had not completed 20 years of service nor had attained the age of 50 years.
The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court, whereby the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria held, “It is an admitted position on record that the appellant had not attained the age of 50 years as on the date of cessation of service. Therefore, the mandatory condition relating to attainment of the prescribed age under Rule 22(i)(a) also remains unfulfilled. In view of the non-satisfaction of both the essential conditions, namely, completion of 20 years of qualifying service and attainment of 50 years of age, the appellant is clearly not entitled to claim pension under Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund Rules.”
“Also, the appellant’s case cannot be said to fall under Rule 22(i)(c) since the appellant was never granted VRS, instead his services were declared to have been voluntary abandoned”, it added.
Senior Advocate N S Nappinai represented the Appellant while AOR Sanjay Kapur represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent Bank. The appellant ceased to be in the job and left for abroad in the year 1989. After returning in 2004, he submitted a letter requesting rejoinment to the service. However, the respondent Bank turned down the said request and declared that the appellant had voluntarily retired. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, and he was orally directed to withdraw the case and approach the Labour Court.
The Labour Court dismissed the claim petition by observing that it had no jurisdiction and competence to decide the case, since the present case was not relating to any pre-existing right under pension rules, and, hence, it could not adjudicate the issue raised therein as per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or under the SBI Pension Rules. The appellant once again approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, where it was held that the claim petition filed by the appellant could not have been entertained by the Labour Court. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge, taking into consideration the limited jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act.
Reasoning
Explaining that an employee’s pension rights are crystallised under Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules, the Bench stated that in order for the appellant to be eligible for the pension under Rule 22(i)(c) two conditions are required to be satisfied which include that the employee should have completed twenty years of pensionable service, irrespective of the age, he should have attained at his request in writing.
Referring to Rule 20 along with Rule 7 of the Pension Fund Rules, the Bench stated that the service for the purpose of pension is to be reckoned from the date of the employee’s admission to the fund, wherein the employee shall become a member of the fund from the date on which he was confirmed in the service of the Bank. “Thus, if we calculate the total period of the service rendered by the appellant, after completion of probation, it would come down to less than 20 years i.e., 19 years, 09 months and 25 days. Thus, the first condition of the appellant having completed 20 years in service is not-fulfilled”, it noted.
Coming to the second condition, which needs to be fulfilled, is that the appellant must have obtained voluntary retirement from the services of the respondent Bank. The Bench was of the view that the present case was not of voluntary retirement, rather of voluntary abandonment of the services, wherein, from January 24, 1998, to December 11, 1998, the appellant, without informing and availing leave, started remaining absent for a long time, after which the respondent-Bank issued notices calling upon the appellant to explain his absence.
Thus, holding that the appellant could not be said to be eligible for pension under the Pension Fund Rules, considering that he has not completed 20 years of service nor had attained the age of 50 years, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India And Another (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 333)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate N S Nappinai, Advocates V. Balaji, B. Dhananjay, Atul Sharma, Vinod K. Nair, C. Kannan, Nizamuddin, AOR Rakesh K. Sharma
Respondent: AOR Sanjay Kapur, Advocates Surya Prakash, Shubhra Kapur, Mahima Kapur, Mansi Kapur, Santha Smruthi, Anuraj Mishra