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.