ARIKARAVULA SANYASI RAJU versus THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, VISAKHAPATNAM (A.P.) AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 18-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

ARIKARA VULA SANY AS! 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: 
A 
B 
c 
Rule 22(/)(b) and (c)-Bank employee-Removal from service on 
charge of misconduct-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 D 
a case of voluntary retiren1ent on completion of 20 years of service-Order 
of removal is also not discriminatory. 
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. 
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 : 
727 
H 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
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. 
B 
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 
C by the Division Bench. 
The appellant placed reliance on Rule 22 of the State Bank of India 
Services Rules which reads as under: 
D 
"22(i) A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on 
E 
F 
G 
H 
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 729 
habits), may at the discretion of the trustees, be granted a 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 B 
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 C 
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 clari

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.