Pension issues in SBI–most laudable a judgment by Supreme Court of India:



Image result for supreme court of india

Daniel came to judgment when Supreme Court of India pronounced their verdict that “Upgradation of Pension is a right and not a booty”. This historical judgment was delivered on 1st July’2015 by the highest Court of the country. So laudable a judgment indeed as a breather to the otherwise disheartened pensioners in the country. All the Pensioners of the country owe a solemn gratitude to the Daniels who delivered the verdict setting aside the petition in negative filed by the State Bank of India. There is a great need that all the retiree pensioners of State Bank of India and also the readers of this blog in general get to know the full details of the judgment, a thrilling one, without taking it in a casual way. The judgment is a lengthy one containing several cross cases running in 22 pages which may not fit into a solitary post. As a via media, accordingly, the relative link is provided below which has to be clicked carefully# by the readers to get to know the full.

LIST OF CASES DEALT WITH:

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1124 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 342 OF 2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.1126 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 461 OF 2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.1127 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 72 OF 2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.4908 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 649 OF 2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.1129 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1008 OF 2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.1131 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1155 OF 2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.1132 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1159 OF 2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.1133 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1220OF 2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.1134 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1327 OF 2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.1135 OF 2015 (@ SLP(C) NO. 1411 OF 2015)

THE RELATIVE LINK:

# Ctrl+Click

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=ad9f660943&view=att&th=14e5ee893d406516&attid=0.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw

 

Advertisements

Author: neelkanth

Certainly not a celebrity but do have inquisitiveness to know things, realise them and live them to the extent possible. My interest in History, Art of Living and behavioural science is an element that inspires me.Am a poet,an author,a consultant, an advisor on computers and behavioural science.Served as Director in Central Board of State Bank of India.Remained associated with trade union activities and industrial relations as President,All India State Bank of India Staff Federation.Led a delegation on computers to several countries abroad number of times as from State Bank of India/ Banking Industry. Was twice accorded with NATIONAL AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE by All India Freelance Journalists Association, Chennai (India). My email address is: neelkanthshahi@gmail.com

32 thoughts on “Pension issues in SBI–most laudable a judgment by Supreme Court of India:”

    1. Sir, I was in SBI in scale III post. Due to some irregularities pointed out by inspector in 2011 a chargesheet was served and in 2014 dismissal was served. I want to discussed in detail. I request u to help me and guide me to solve the problem. Regards. B K soni 7600014068. bksoni583@gmail.com

      Like

  1. LAUDABLE AND EXCELLENT SIR AND CREDIT FOR THE HISTORICAL JUDGMENT GOES TO YOU AND SRI K.R. SAINI. THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU SIR

    Like

  2. THIS POST HAS BEEN WRITTEN BYSHRI NEELKANTH JI FOR THE BENIFIT OF S.B.I P ENSIONERS AND ALSO REQUESTED THEM TO GO THROUGH THE HISTORIC JUDGEMENT DECLARED BY A BENCH OF TWO JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT AND RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED IN OUR PENSION CASE W.P(C)1875/2013.SHRI NEELKANTH HASUSED VERYBAPPROPRIATE WORDS FOR THIS POST HE HAS USED THE WORD”DANIEL” ACCORDING TO ME ”DAIELS” MEANS UPRIGHTJUDGES AND RIGHTJUDGEMENT BASED ON REALITIES.DESPITE REQUEST MADE BY SHRI NEELKANTH ,NO RESPONSE FROM THE PENSIONERS RECEIVED, THEREFORE I AGAIN REQUEST THEM TO SUBMIT COMMENTS/FEEDBACK ON THIS POST.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

    1. My sincere thanks for a nice reaction from you. I had mailed you my reply to Sri Ramchandra Upadhyaya on his queries which also explains what DANIEL stand for. I am quoting below a copy of my reply for your perusal and opinion;

      Neelkanth Neek
      12 Jul (1 day ago)

      I feel glad to receive your candid but meaningful an observation on my write-up ” Pension issues in SBI-most laudable judgment by the Supreme Court of India.” It alerts me. I owe you my thanks for this. I deal with them seriatim as under:
      All the posts in this blog are routinely directed to the pensioners in State Bank of India and it goes without saying that the relative readers take them ipso facto as such as the judgement so delivered equally apply to the retirees from State Bank.
      Justice Daniel doesn’t exist today but his name is very much found in the legal history. He was, and is, reputedly known for his judgements in favour of the aggrieved ones. Shakespeare mentioned him in his Merchant of Venice talking of the characters like Shylock, Portia, Antonio. When the Judge arrived, he was hailed in advance as “Daniel has come to judgement”. Since then whenever there is verdict by a Court in favour of the aggrieved ones, there is a reference of Daniel, as I have read it in several books. My write-up is exclusively aimed at pensioners in SBI with the post starting as “Pension issues in SBI…. Hope this meets your queries; if not, I am prepared to gladly entertain your further anxieties. I am also prepared to go for neceaary additions and alterations in my post itself if you so suggest in the interest of the retirees.
      I repeat my thanks with regards.

      M.R. Awasthi

      Like

  3. IN THIS SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT AREFERENCE IS MADE REGARDING HISTROIC JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF D.S.NAKRA V/S UNION OF INDIA.IN THIS CASE D.A DESAI JUSTICE ,SPEAKING FOR THE BENCH OPINED,PARAGRAPH 18”QUESTION AS TO WHY PENSION IS PAID.AND WHY WAS IT REQUIRED TO BE LIBERALISED?IS THE EMPLOYEE,WHICH EXPRESSION WILL INCLUDE EVEN THE STATE,BOUND TO PAY PENSION?IS THERE ANYBOBLIGATION ON THE EMPLOYER TO PROVIDE FORERESTWHILE EMPLOYEE EVEN AFTER THECONTRACT OF THE EMPLOYEE COME TO END AND THE EMPLOYEE HAS CEASED TO RENDER SEVICE?
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  4. PARAGRAPH 19 OF D.S NAKRA V/S UNION OF INDIA SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT—————-
    WHAT IS A PENSION ? WHAT ARE THE GOELS OF PENSION ?WHAT PUBLIC INTEREST ORPURPOSE,IF ANY,IT SEEKS TO SERVE ?IT DOES SEEK TO SERVE SOMEPUBLIC PURPOSE,IS THWARTED BY SAID ARTIFICIAL DIVISION OF RETIREMENT PRE AND POST A CETAINDATE.WE NEED SEEK ANSWER TO THESE ANDINCIDENTAL QUESTIONSBSO SO AS TO SEND JUSTICE BETWEEN THEPARTIES TOTHIS PETITION.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  5. IMPORTANT COMMENTS FOR OUR W.P(C)1875/2013
    THE ANTIQUATED NOTION OF PENSION BEING A BOUNTY A GRATUITOUS PAYMENT DEPENDING ON THE SWEETWILL OR GRACE OFTHE EMPLOYER NOT CLAIMABLE ASA RIGHT AND ,THEREFORE,NO RIGHT TO PENSION CAN BE ENFORCED THROUGH COURT HAS BEE N SWEPT UNDER THE CARPET BY THE DECISION OF CONSTITUTION BENCH IN DOKINANDAN PRASAD V/S STATE OFVBIHAR WHEREIN IN THIS COURT AUTHORITATIVELY RULED THAT PENSION IS A RIGHT AND THE PAYMENT OF IT DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE DISCRETION OF THE GOVERNMENT BUT IS GOVERNED COMING WITHIN THOSE RULES IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM PENSION.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  6. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE GRANT OF PENSION DOES NOT DEPEND UPON ANY ONE’S DISCRETION.IT IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUANTIFYING THE AMOUNT HAVING REGARD TO SERVICE AND OTHER ALLIED MATTERS THAT IT MAY BE NECESSARY AUTHORITY TO PASS AN ORDER TO THAT FOLLOWS TO THE OFFICER NOT BECAUSE OF ANY SUCH ORDER BUT BY VIRTUE OF RULES.THIS VIEW WAS REAFFIRED IN THE STATE OF PUNJAB V/S IQBAL SINGH.
    IN STATE BANKOF INDIA REGULATION 23(1) IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT PENSION IS TO BE PAID ON THE AVERAGE SALARY OF LAST12 MONTHS PENSION ABLE SERVICE BUT IN THE CASEOF 7TH BIPARTITE THIS RULE IS VIOLATED AND7TH BIPARTITERETIREES ARE GETTING PENSION ON THE BASIS OF PRE-REVISED SALARY(6TH BIPARTITEV PAYSCALES) THUS RULES ARE NOT ADHERD TO.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

    1. Sir, with due respect to all my seniors, I have this to say. The SBI is one of the greatest institutions set up by GoI. I have seen stalwarts like RK Talwar who chose to resign than bow before a demon-like Indira Gandhi’s diktats. From 1985, I have seen gross erosion of values in our officers from lower ranks to right up to the top. So brazen are the executives as to ‘arrange a loan of Rs.6,000/ crores’ to Mallya’s airline by first ‘creating a viability report by SBI Caps’ and then getting other equally scandalously corrupt CEOs of other banks in a consortium cobbles up by SBI’s top brass. All this when Mallya should have been treated as a leper that he was and is by looking at his balance sheet and also the ‘red’ tag attached to funding airlines. Thus it is that we stand with our future so totally mortgaged by people associated with large lendings to tainted borrowers. This being so, SBI executives deprive officers who dare to say NO to their diktats by denying pension to them for 20 years or more so others are scared to death and don’t whimper when ‘asked to recommend/sanction questionable loans. This should be opposed by all pensioners and serving officers of SBI.

      Like

  7. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT MENTIONED INTHIS POST BYSHRI NEELKANTH GAVE A STRONG ADVICE TO THEGOVERNMENT THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT TOAVOID UNWARRANTED LITIGATIONS AND NOT TO ENCOURAGE ANY LITIGATION FORTHE SAKEOF LITIGATION.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  8. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT DATED 1STJULY,2015,MENTIONED IN THIS POST IS SIMILAR TO SUPREME COURTJUDGEMENT DATED 23.02 .1989 IN FAVOUR OF S.B.I PENSIONERS,DIRECTION WAS TO PAY THE MONTHLY PENSION WITH CEILING OF RS2400/ W.E.F 1.1.1986 AGAINST THE BACKDROP OFMAXIMUM MONTHLYSALARY OF RS4800/OF D.M.D.HOWEVER,THE RULES REMAINED ALMOST STATIC UPTO 1986.MAXIMUM PENSION WAS RS750/ RELAXABLE UPTO RS1000/ FOR SENIOR OFFICERS AT THE DISCRETION OF TRUSTEES OF PENSION FUND.IN THAT SUPREME COURTJUDGEMENT ALSO COURT SAYS– PENSION IS A RIGHT AND NOT A BOUNTY.IT WOULD THEREFORE NOT BE PROPER TO LEAVE THE QUANTUM OFPENSION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE TRUSTEES IN EACH CASE AS DONE AND COURT FIX THE ONE CEILING AT50% MAXIMUM RS2400/ DESPITE BANK PROPOSED TO THE SUPREME COURT MAXIMUM RS 1300/FOR AWARDSTAFF AND MAXIMUM FOR OFFICERS AT RS2400/PER MONTH BUT COURT AGREED WITH ONE CEILING OF RS2400/PERMONTH.SEE REGULATION 23 OF S.BI EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND REGULATIONS-2014.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  9. when we are losing hope or ourselves,and ind no ray o hope anywhere,you &Mr,Saini came as a angel.lot o kudos both o you.

    Like

  10. Thanks for highlighting this Landmark Judgement of SC, Sir..This Judgement is an eye opener to SBI Top Management and SBI PensionFund Trust, that Atleast they should not hereafter unnecessarily and as a routine, file appeal after appeal in SC, even after several High Court Benches gave landmark Judgements in favour of Employees, who are fighting for Pension for decades..It is imperative, SBI must implement the Court Judgements to everyone uniformly who suffered on account of their faulty Rules and should not drive the Employees to go to Court again and again, after all the Pensioners are their own Employees who worked for number of years..Only the Legal Counsel appearing for SBI in SC is minting huge money and benefited, and ultimately SBI Appeal through SLP case is being dismissed even at the Admission stage, thanks to Hon’ble SC Judges very rightly points out the legitimate right of Employees that “Pension is not a Gift, but it is a Right”..

    Like

  11. It is advisable and we hope under Govt under our dynamic PM, Atleast now, being owner of SBI, must correct the errors of SBI, as SBI legal action against its own Employees in SBI and SBI Associates, have been dismissed by various Hon’ble HC Benches and Hon’ble SC Benches and awarded Pension, even though it is late..Some Pensioners are not alive today to see the Judgement and their cases are still pending and lot of Employees, some of them are Women, Ex serviceman, Dead, Missing, aged above 70 years still awaiting in the hope SBI will pay Pension, proactively, without going to the Court…

    Like

  12. SHRI JASPAL RAI,THERE IS SOMETHING TERRIBLY WRONG INDEED WITH THE EXISTING POLISY ON THE BANK PENSION.THE FEDERATION OF SBI PENSIONERS,ALONG WITH ITS ALL 14 AFFILIATES,HAS BEEN RUNNING FROM PILLAR TO POST FOR THE LAST 27 YEARS(W.E.F 1.11.1987.) TO SET THE MATTER RIGHT.PENSIONERS IN THE AGE GROUP OF 70 TO 87 YEARS ARE THE MOST SUFFERER.(5TH,6TH AND 7TH BIPARTITE RETIREES)THESE GROUP OF PENSIONERS DURING VTHEIR ADVANCED AGE ARE DRAWING PENSION LESS THANRS19000/ IN THIS PERIOD OFINFLATION AND THEY ARE NOT DRAWING 100% D.A NEUTRALISATION. WE ARE DEMANDING EQUITY,FAIR PLAY AND NATURAL JUSTICE IN THE WHOLE SYSTEM.
    K.R.SAINI

    Like

  13. One more Judgement, a slap on SBI. even though Madras HC Bench decided in favour of the Employee,,SBI preferred a SLP and dismissed by Hon’ble SC on admission stage itself..Will SBI Top Managment sympathetically consider eMployees legitimate request, without going to HC/SC on appeal again and again,by spending huge legal Fees to Lawyers..

    Please read the link for detailed order..http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sc%2022362-2236515p.txt

    Like

  14. This case is not a Pension Issue. but, a dismissed trade union leader, approached Madras High Court and the Judges dismissed the Impugned order of SBI and SBI appealed in SC through SLP and SC dismissed SLPon admission stage itself..this only shows SBI mechanically goes after appeal after Appeal, and pays huge money to Advocates..

    Like

  15. With Regards to all the Elderly one Pensioners. One Rank One Pension is being lauded by Military Pensioners. Why not in SBI. Why not the system is being developed on realty grounds ? I wish that all the Pensioners retired any time should be paid pension at the same rate common to All every time. There should not be any different. Old one will die before the new one so the longevity benefit will be passed to the Bank. The status of living should be allowed common to all pensioners as per their rank. It is also very shameful to find that there is no revision of Pension on each and every Bipartite Agreement and Pensioners are being cheated by the present Association each and every time. We should think some new system of protest like Anna and Gandhi and start Hunger strike in each and every district of India.

    Like

  16. referring to Mr. Kedarnath Agrawal comments on the penultiment sentence why and what are we waiting for. In these columns I find comments like justice delayed is justice denied.. Courts are prolonging the final hearing .Mockkery at the judicial level.

    Like

  17. Shri S.Shanmugavel, an Ex Serviceman, who worked as Security Guard and retired from SBI, was denied Pension by SBI for more than 8 years, even after repeated representations.

    However, the Division Bench of Madras High Court by Honourable Judges Mr.Satish K Agnihotri and Honourable Justice M.Venugopal, in a land Mark Judgement, ordered the Bank to pay pension to Shri Shanmugavel, by counting the date of appointment, for calculating Pensionable service, and not date of confirmation..Thus the Employee has completed letter 20 years of Pensionable service from his first initial date of Appointment and eligible for Pension..

    The Bank’s unreasonable Appeal through SLP was dismissed by Honourable Supreme Court on 6th July 2015, on admission stage itself and upheld the order of Madras High Court Bench..
    ……….
    Madras High Court
    S.Shanmugavel vs The Chief General Manager on 16 February, 2015
    THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
    IN
    RESERVED ON : 10.02.2015
    RAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SAT
    DATE OF DECISION : 16.02.2015 C
    OISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
    el .. Appella
    W.A.No.1483 of 2014 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 S.Shanmuga
    vnt Vs. 1.The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India,
    e, Chennai-600 006
    Local Head Office, Circle Top House, No.16, College La
    n. 2.The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Region-IV,
    ef Manager, S
    Zonal Office, No.86, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. 3.The Ch
    itate Bank of India, Meenambakkam Airport, Chennai-600 027. .. Respondents

    This writ appeal is preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order
    of this court dated 16.6.2014 made in W.P.No.13425 of 2010.
    an For Respondents : Mr.G.Senthil
    For Appellant : Mr.R.Prem Narayan for Mr.N.Naganat
    hkumar for Mr.S.Sethuraman – – – – –
    JUDGMENT
    SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.

    The instant intra-court appeal arises from the order dated 16.6.2014 passed in W.P.No.13425 of 2010.

    2. The indisputable facts are that the appellant/ writ petitioner, working in the respondent Bank, submitted his option on 7.3.2007 in pursuance of the Exit Option Scheme in Sl.No.298/2006-07, Circular No.CDO/P&HRD-IR/28/2006-07 dated 31.8.2006, in the prescribed format. The respondent Bank permitted the writ petitioner to retire from the Bank under the Exit Option Scheme by the close of business on 15.6.2007. It was also directed vide order dated 24.4.2007 that all terminal benefits be disbursed after ensuring that all dues of the bank are settled. The writ petitioner was, thereafter, intimated by communication dated 14.5.2007. Further, the petitioner was informed vide communication dated 20.9.2007 that he was eligible for ex-gratia for 12 months and accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,51,399/- was sanctioned.

    3. After sometime, the petitioner made a representation on 2.2.2008 for pensionary benefits, stating therein that the petitioner had completed 20 years of pensionable service for entitlement of pension. His request for pension was rejected vide communication dated 7.6.2008, holding that under Rule 22 of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules (for short SBI Rules), a member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the Bank’s service,

    (i)After having completed twenty years’ pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years; or

    (ii)If he is in the service of the Bank on or after 01.11.93, after having completed 10 years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years; or

    (iii)If he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.05.1998, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty years Thus, he was informed that he had completed only 19 years and 9 months of service as on 15.6.2007 and therefore, he is not entitled to pension. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has come up with the writ petition, seeking for the aforestated direction.

    4. Mr.R.Prem Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the writ petitioner was initially appointed on 23.2.1987 on probation for a period of six months, i.e., until 23.8.1987. Thereafter, on completion of probation, he was confirmed from 23.8.1987 vide communication, dated 2.9.1987. Thus, seniority of the petitioner is to be counted from the date of initial appointment, i.e., 23.2.1987. Counting seniority from 23.2.1987, the writ petitioner has completed more than 20 years as on 15.6.2007, the date of retirement.

    5. Relying on a decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra1, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since the writ petitioner was appointed on probation in accordance with law through selection process and the probation was confirmed immediately on completion of his probation, the writ petitioner is entitled to seniority with effect from the initial date of appointment. It was further urged that it is not the case where the appointment of the petitioner was irregular or illegal and as such, the date for reckoning the seniority is the date of confirmation. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge had wrongly not calculated the period spent during probation for the purpose of counting seniority and held that the writ petitioner had not completed 20 years of service from the date of his confirmation till date of retirement and as such, under Rule 22(i) of the SBI Rules, the petitioner is entitled to pension and the order dated 7.6.2008 was wrongly upheld.

    6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank would submit that under provisions of Rule 20 of SBI Rules, the writ petitioner has not completed 20 years of service, as required, entitling him for pensionary benefits. Relying Rule 7 of the SBI Rules, it was contended that the seniority has to be counted from the date of confirmation as he becomes the member of the fund only from the date of the confirmation. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge is right, warranting no interference.

    7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

    8. The Central Board of the State Bank of India, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and also with the previous sanction of the Central Government, framed the Employees’ Pension Fund Rules. Rule 2 defines member, as any person in the service of the bank, who has been admitted to the membership of the fund.

    9. Rule 7 prescribes that save as provided in rule 8, every permanent employee (including a permanent part-time employee, who is required by the Bank to work for more than six hours a week) in the service of the Bank who is entitled to pension benefits under the terms and conditions of his service shall become a member of the fund from the date from which he is confirmed in the service of the Bank, or the date from which he may be required to become a member of the Fund under the terms and conditions of his service. Under Rule 8, no employee shall be eligible to become the member of the fund on or after 22.5.1998.

    10. In the case on hand, the petitioner, on being confirmed, was admitted to provident fund from 23.8.1987, vide communication dated 2.9.1987. However, no document has been produced to indicate as to from which date the petitioner became the member of the Employees Pension Fund. A request of the writ petitioner for grant of pension was rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner has not completed 20 years pensionable service, after having attained the age of 55 years, as quoted in the impugned communication dated 7.6.2008. In the said communication, it is observed that under Rule 7, an employee became a member of the pension fund only from the date from which he was confirmed in the service of the bank.

    11. Upon perusal of the aforestated provisions, as quoted by the authorities in the impugned communication, dated 7.6.2008, it is evident that an employee is entitled to pension only on having become a member of the pension fund. It is also crystal clear that an employee cannot be a member of the pension fund, who is not confirmed on the post. However, Rule 22(i) of the SBI Rules, which has been referred to in the communication dated 7.6.2008 prescribed 20 years pensionable service. At the first instance, it does not prescribe 20 years as member of pension fund. Thus, we have to read and understand both expressions in its proper context.

    12. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner was appointed on 23.2.1987 on probation for a period of six months. Immediately on completion of probation, he was confirmed on the post. Thus, his seniority in the service starts from the date of initial appointment as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association Vs. State of Maharashtra1, which dealt with the case, wherein the petitioner was appointed initially on temporary basis in accordance with the rules and thereafter, he was confirmed on probation and it reads as under:

    47. To sum up, we hold that:

    (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.

    The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop-gap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.

    (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.

    (C) When appointments are made from more than one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly.

    (D) If it becomes impossible to adhere to the existing quota rule, it should be substituted by an appropriate rule to meet the needs of the situation. In case, however, the quota rule is not followed continuously for a number of years because it was impossible to do so the inference is irresistible that the quota rule had broken down.

    (E) Where the quota rule has broken down and the appointments are made from one source in excess of the quota, but are made after following the procedure prescribed by the rules for the appointment, the appointees should not be pushed down below the appointees from the other source inducted in the service at a later date.

    (F) Where the rules permit the authorities to relax the provisions relating to the quota, ordinarily a presumption should be raised that there was such relaxation when there is a deviation from the quota rule.

    (G) The quota for recruitment from the different sources may be prescribed by executive instructions, if the rules are silent on the subject.

    (H) If the quota rule is prescribed by an executive instruction, and is not followed continuously for a number of years, the inference is that the executive instruction has ceased to remain operative.

    (I) The posts held by the permanent Deputy Engineers as well as the officiating Deputy Engineers under the State of Maharashtra belonged to the single cadre of Deputy Engineers.

    (J) The decision dealing with important questions concerning a particular service given after careful consideration should be respected rather than scrutinised for finding out any possible error. It is not in the interest of Service to unsettle a settled position.

    13. Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association1 (supra), was referred to with approval in L.Chandrakishore Singh Vs. State of Manipur2, A.G.Sainath Reddy Vs. Govt. of A.P.3, Union of India Vs. Dharam Pal4 and others and lastly in Debabrata Das Vs. Jatindra Prasad Das5, wherein it was held as under :

    41. A five-Judge Bench of this Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Assn.3 was concerned with a question of seniority in service between the direct recruits and promotees amongst Deputy Engineers in the State of Maharashtra. This Court considered previous decisions of this Court, including S.B. Patwardhan v. State of Maharashtra7 and Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P.8 and in para 47 of the Report summed up the legal position. Clauses (A), (B) and (C) of para 47 are relevant for the present purpose which read as follows: (Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers Assn.3, SCC p. 745, para 47) (A) Once an incumbent is appointed to a post according to rule, his seniority has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation.

    The corollary of the above rule is that where the initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stopgap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.

    (B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.

    (C) When appointments are made from more than one source, it is permissible to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources, and if rules are framed in this regard they must ordinarily be followed strictly. The essence of direction in Clause (A) is that the seniority of an appointee has to be counted from the date of his appointment and not according to the date of his confirmation once a recruitee is appointed to a post according to the rules. In other words, where initial appointment is only ad hoc and not according to the rules and made as a stopgap arrangement, the officiation in such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority. The writ petitioners appointment as an ad hoc Additional District Judge is not traceable to the 1963 Rules. The simple reason leading to this consequence is that there was no vacancy available which was to be filled up by promotion on that date in the Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch).

    14. Thus, pensionable service of the petitioner is to be reckoned from the date of his initial appointment on 23.2.1987. Computing the period from that day, the writ petitioner had completed more than 20 years pensionable service as required under Rule 22(i) of the SBI Rules, as on the day his request for Exit Option was accepted, i.e., on 15.6.2007.

    15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioner had not completed 20 years of pensionable service, as required under the provisions of law. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is, accordingly, set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. The writ petitioner/appellant shall be entitled to consequential benefits, payable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

    (S.K.A., J.) (M.V., J.)
    16.02.2015 Index : Yes vvk

    To 1.The Chief General Manager, Sta
    te Bank of India, Local Head Office,
    ane, Chennai-600
    Circle Top House, No.16, College
    L006. 2.The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India,
    hennai-600 00
    Region-IV, Zonal Office, No.86, Rajaji Salai,
    C1. 3.The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Meenambakkam Airport,
    M.VENUGOPAL, J
    Chennai-600 027. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. and
    . vvk judgment in W.A.No.1483 of 2014

    16.02.2015

    Like

    1. Sir, thanks for such a thoughtful inclusion of the above judgment for the benefit of other officers. I have compiled a library of more than 1000 orders of Hon’ble High Courts / Supreme Court and shall be glad to share them with any officer who is victimised as a service to fellow officers.

      Like

  18. Dear Sir
    Thank you for the infomration.
    There is injustice in the present Bipartite settlement of Bank employees. For instance even if there is an increase of over Rs. 20000 in Basin Pay for a Senior Manager, the pension for a retiree does’nt increase even by Rs. 1. The reason being this increase is kept as an adhoc not being ranked for pension purposes. This is a gross anamoly. With the result pensioner will get almost same or lesser amount of pension that was prevailing before salary revision.

    Can this be contested in the the light of the above SC judgement for all nationalised bank retirees in court of law?

    Please throw some light on this aspect.

    With Regards

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Dear Sir
    Thank you for the information.
    There is injustice in the present Bipartite settlement of Bank employees. For instance even if there is an increase of over Rs. 20000 in Basic Pay for a Senior Manager, the pension does’nt increase even by Rs. 1. The reason being this increase is kept out side the purview as an adhoc not ranking for pension purposes. This is a gross anamoly. With the result a pensioner will get almost same or lesser amount of pension that was prevailing before salary revision.

    Can this be contested in the the light of the above SC judgement for all nationalised bank retirees in court of law?

    Please throw some light on this aspect.

    With Regards

    Like

  20. I joined apil 1981 n bank dismissed me from service from Oct 2001as clerk after suspension from April 1997.one criminal case appeal is pending can I claim pension from state bank

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s