Quite difficult as it is, it is not easy to answer the question as to what is the work output put in by the parliamentarions except that almost all the time their Indian breed remains engrossed in pugnacity of the sort of mud slinging unbecoming of grace and dignity like the rascal sort of the people do with the difference that they criminally use their chairs as the weapons to attack their opponents howling harsh in tone and tenor aimed at hurting them stoutly. Their’s is a typical culture of brazenly serving their own personal interest like comparing themselves with the senior IAS executives in the government vehemently putting up the demand that they be placed atleast at par with the later in the matter of salary and allowances for both the caders of Loksabha and Rajyasabha. Surprisingly the demand was acceded to in toto with a plus both in the matter of salary and allowances and VVIP perquisites like superbly and lavishly furnished bungalows with spralling parking space and various other multifarious luxuries. This is all on the face of the facts that the real workforce in thousands of the undertakings in the country mainly including Banking industry are hankering for legilimately long overdue revision of their salary and allowances including removal of dozens of anomalies in the matter of State Bank of India more related to payment of a paltry sum of amount as pension to their retirees which on an average is lesser than what a daily wager earns. The top management of the Bank in connivance with the Government of India is always prompt enough to accord a negation to whatever are the petitions made to them in the matter. Parliamentarians do not find it feasible to bother the least even to spare themselves to pay their attention the least to the employees including the retired ones as they find themselves more committed to their mud slinging sessions that interest them more. They forget they are there to pursue the cause of the people without serving their own self interest indulging themselves into gossips and mudslingings.
Their work output is only mudslinging:
Advertisements
Kind attention : SBI Employees
1 915.1873.17 WP.doc
ISM
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1873 OF 2017
Rugmini Ganesh …..Petitioner
w/o Ganesh Raman Iyer
R/o A 402, Shreeji Milap,
Sector 40, Plot 52, Seawoods (West)
Nerul (West), Navi Mumbai 400706
V/s.
State Bank of India …..Respondent
Rep. By its Chairperson
Mumbai 400 020
Mr. Anil Bajaj for the Petitioner
Mr. Neel Helekar for respondent
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT &
NITIN W SAMBRE, JJ.
DATE : 5
th OCTOBER, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the
consent of the parties.2 915.1873.17 WP.doc
2 The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction
that she be granted pension. There can be no dispute about the
facct that the Petitioner was appointed as a clerk on 01/09/1980 on
probation. The Petitioner was thereafter confirmed on 01/03/1981.
It seems that she took voluntary retirement under the Voluntary
Retirement Scheme (VRS) on 31/03/2001. There is no dispute about
the fact that the Petitioner is not denied pension on the ground that
she has taken the benefit of VRS. The denial of pension is on the
touchstone of Rule 22 of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension
Fund Rules. The said Rule reads thus:
“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 or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after
1.11.93, after having completed ten years pensionable
service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight
years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after
22.05.1998, after having completed ten years pensionable
service provided or he has attained the age of sixty years.3 915.1873.17 WP.doc
(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 incapacitated 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) ………..
(iii) ……….
3 The reading of the said Rule discloses that the person is
entitled to pension after completing 20 years of service and if he has
attained 50 years or if he is in service of the bank on or after having
completed twenty years’ pensionable service provided that he has
attained the age of fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on
or after 1.11.93, after having completed ten years pensionable 4 915.1873.17 WP.doc
service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if
he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.05.1998, after having
completed ten years pensionable service provided or he has attained
the age of sixty years. The said Rule had come up for consideration
in a case which can be said to be identical to the case in hand before
the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 1483 of
2014. The Judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
is dated 16/02/2015.
4 In the context of relief sought in the present petition, the
conclusion of the Division Bench insofar as the pensionable service
is concerned is contained in paragraph 14 of the said Judgment
which for the sake of ready reference is reproduced hereinunder:
14. Thus, pensionable service of the Petitioner is to be
reckoned from the date of his initial appointment on
23.02.1987. 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
15.06.2007. 5 915.1873.17 WP.doc
5 Hence, the Division Bench of Madras High Court considering
the seniority rules which postulate the seniority has to be counted
from the date of initial appointment, held that the pensionable
service is to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment.
6 In the case of the Petitioner above named that is precisely not
been done and that the period in which the Petitioner was on
probation has been discounted, resulting in the Petitioner falling
short of the qualifying service of 20 years. There is no dispute about
the fact that the Petitioner was appointed on 01/09/1980 and the
Petitioner took VRS on 31/03/2001 which is more than 20 years of
service and hence, even if the period of leave of loss which is a
period of 1 month and 8 days is deducted, the Petitioner would still
fulfill the qualifying service of 20 years. The above petition is
therefore, required to be allowed. We accordingly direct the
Respondent no. 1 to pay pension to the Petitioner, calculated from
the date of her retirement i.e. from 31/03/2001. Arrears of pension 6 915.1873.17 WP.doc
be paid within 12 weeks from the date and the Respondent no. 1
would thereafter pay pension from month to month as per Rules.
7 The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
8 Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms with
parties to bear their respective costs.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] [R. M. SAVANT, J.]
LikeLike