This was a judgment delivered by Calcutta High Court in the case of State Bank of India & others Vs.Lina Ghosh & others. Thanks to Vipin Kalia who made the text of the verdict available to us. Actually the judgment by itself is not exhaustive as the readers normally expect and for that reason another post is to be released containing views of experts like KR Saini, H.Ganpathy and also Sujoy Kumar Ghosh analysing the pros and cons keeping in mind the issue of pension in State Bank in its totality. It was thought in the meantime necessary to apprise the pensioners and the readers of the above case to the notice of all concerned. May be some take it as an augury in relation to the pension issue as a whole.The one distinct snag detrimental to the interest of others is that this judgment is not to be treated as precedent. The contents of the judgment so made available to us read as under:
APO No. 351 of 2013
WP No. 1317 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
LINA GHOSH & ORS.
The Hon’ble JUSTICE BANERJEE
The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA
Date : 29th April, 2015.
Mr. A. K. Routh and Mr. Sudip Pal Chowdhury,
Ld. Advocates for the appellant.
Mr. Hironmoy Bhattacharjee and Mr. P. P. Mukherjee
Ld. Advocates for the respondent.
The Court :- This appeal would relate
to retrial benefit that the employees of the State Bank of
India were entitled. Sri Salil Kumar Ghosh, the original
respondent no. 1 was an awardee staff of the State Bank of
India. He retired on November 30, 2001. He approached this
Court in 2009, inter-alia, praying for revision of his
pension that the Bank denied vide orders dated May 18,
2007, June 24, 2009 and July 31, 2009. The learned Single
Judge by judgment and order dated September 13, 2012
allowed the writ petition and directed the Bank to
calculate the pensionary benefits of the writ petitioner on
the basis of the revised pay received by him under 7th
bipartite settlement as the pensionary benefits had been
disbursed to him since his retirement.
The bank, being aggrieved, preferred the instant
appeal. In 2012 the Bank was, however, not able to obtain
any interim order of stay. Hence, the authority complied
with the said order and the original respondent no. 1
enjoyed the benefit of the said order till his death. The
appeal has come up after his death when the deceased is
substituted by his widow, one son and one daughter. They
are now represented by Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharjee, learned
We have heard rival contentions. In our view, this
is a trifle issue that we need not go into at this stage
when the concerned employee is no more in this world. He
was getting a poultry sum of Rs.8500/- as pension. Even if
it was revised as per the order of the learned Judge, the
widow would not get the full benefit. She would be entitled
to the family pension as admissible under the Service
Rules. In such event, we do not wish to go into the
question raised by the Bank that would be left open to be
decided in an appropriate proceeding. We direct the Bank to
extend the benefit to the widow and the children, as the
case may be, as per the Service Rules. They must get family
pension accordingly. We make it clear, this would not be
treated as precedent.
This appeal is, thus, disposed of without any order
as to costs.
(RAJIV SHARMA, J.)