18 November 1996
Supreme Court
Download

ARIKARAVULA SANYASI RAJU Vs BRANCH MANAGER, SBI, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Case number: C.A. No.-015072-015072 / 1996
Diary number: 78575 / 1996


1

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

2

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.