Headnote
The reporters’ summary of the points decided. It is not part of the judgment.
ARIKARA VULA SANYAS! RAJU v. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, VISAKHAPATNAM (A.P.) AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 18, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Service Lau:: State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules: Rule 22(/)(b) and (c)-Bank employee-Removal from service on charge ofmisconduct-Claim for pension-Held, not sustainable-Removal from service for misconduct cannot be considered to be incapacitation for rendering the service and clause (b) of Rule 22(1) does not apply: nor does clause (c) of the Rule apply in such case-Clause (c) would apply in a case of voluntary retiren1ent on completion of 20 years ofservice-Order of removal is also not discriminatory.
c
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 14-Bank employee removed from service on charge of E misconduct-Claim/or pension on the ground that similarly situated person was earlier allowed pension-Held, Article 14 does not apply in such a case the order is not discriminatory-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 pe1petuate the same F mistake.
Judgment
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 15072 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.96 of the Andhra Pradesh G High Court in W.A. No. 203 of 1996. A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji for the Appellant. The following order of the Court was delivered :
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.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 from service on the finding of misconduct recorded by order dated May 25, 1990. He filed the writ petition claiming paymer.t 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, ifhe 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 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 iafirmity not being the result of irregular or intemperate
ARJKARAVULA SANYASI RAJU 1·. BRANCH MANAGER, ST ATE BANK. OF INDIA habits), may at the discretion of the trustees, be granted a proportionate pensio.n.
(iii) A member who has been permitted to retire under clauses (l(c) above shall be entitled to propo11ionate pension." It was contended that under Clause 22(i) (b ), because of the removal from service he was incapacitated for further active 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 ifhe 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 J:ias completed 20 years of pensionable service, irrespective of removal, he is entitled to the pension under clause (c) thereof. In support thereof, he sought to µlace 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 fu11her contended that one Mr. C.C.M. Nambiar, who was similarly situated and removed frotn 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 of20 years of pensionable service, clause (c) of Rule 22(1) gets. attracted. It does not apply to officer who was removed frotn service for misconduct. Under these circumstances, 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. The appeal is disposed of. No costs. R.P.
Appeal disposed of.