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.