LexK.G. SESHADRI versus THE TRUSTEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 433 : 2026 INSC 333 K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another (Civil Appeal No. 4279 of 2026) 08 April 2026 [Prashant Kumar Mishra* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant is entitled for pensionary benefits keeping in view the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955. Headnotes† State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955 – rr.22(i)(c), 22(i)(a), 20, 7 – Appellant primarily placed reliance upon r.22(i)(c) to claim entitlement to pensionary benefits, whereas the respondent(s) contended by placing reliance on r.22(i)(a), that the appellant does not fulfil the conditions prescribed therein and is, therefore, not entitled to pension – Whether the appellant is entitled for pensionary benefits under the Pension Fund Rules: Held: No – Appellant is not eligible for pension under the Pension Fund Rules considering that he has not completed 20 years of service nor had attained the age of 50 years, hence, making him ineligible u/r.22(i)(a) – Appellant’s case cannot be said to fall u/r.22(i)(c) either since he was never granted VRS, instead his services were declared to have been voluntary abandoned – Appellant’s case does not fall in either of the aforesaid Rules – Appeal dismissed – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [Para 32] Case Law Cited Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. v. Radhey Shyam Pandey [2020] 4 SCR 814 : (2020) 6 SCC 438 – distinguished. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr. [1994] Supp. 4 SCR 617 : (1995) 1 SCC 235; Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju v. * Author 434 [2026] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam (A.P) and Ors. [1996] Supp. 8 SCR 727 : (1997) 1 SCC 256 – referred to. Rugmini Ganesh w/o Ganesh Raman Iyer vs. State Bank of India Rep. By its Chairperson, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3884 – referred to. List of Acts State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. List of Keywords Rule 22(i)(c), State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955; Rule 22(i)(a), State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955; Not eligible for pension under the Pension Fund Rules; 20 years of service not completed; Age of 50 years not attained; Case not of voluntary retirement; Voluntary abandonment of services; VRS not granted; Services were voluntarily abandoned; Voluntarily abandoned services; Total period of service rendered; Rule 20, State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955; Rule 7, State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955; Entitlement to pension disputed; Pension Fund Rules; Not entitled for pensionary benefits. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4279 of 2026 From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WA No. 1065 of 2022. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): Ms. N S Nappinai, Sr. Adv., V. Balaji, B. Dhananjay, Atul Sharma, Vinod K. Nair, R. Mohan, C. Kannan, Nizamuddin, Rakesh K. Sharma. Advs. for the Respondent(s): K.M. Natraj, A.S.G., Sanjay Kapur, Surya Prakash, Ms. Santha Smruthi, Anuraj Mishra, Ms. Mansi Kapur. [2026] 4 S.C.R. 435 K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A No.1065 of 2022, whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-Bank and the same was confirmed after the probation period of six months i.e., from 17.02.1979 till 12.12.1998. The appellant ceased to be in the job and left for abroad in the year 1989. After returning in the year 2004, he gave a letter to re-join the service. However, the respondent-Bank turned down the said request and, vide letter dated 21.07.2008, the respondent-Bank declared that the appellant has been voluntarily retired. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter dated 21.07.2008, the appellant filed a writ petition being W.P. No.19002 of 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. On 21.04.2009, the High Court orally directed the appellant t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.