STATE BANK OF PATIALA versus PRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 893 · Decided: 07-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I • 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 893 
STATE BANK OF PATIALA 
v. 
PRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2010 etc.) 
JULY 07, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
. 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
c 
Pension - Entitlement -
To the employees who took 
voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and 
had completed 19 ~years of service - Held: the employees 
having completed qualifying service for getting pension as 
per pension regulations, were entitled to pension - State Bank o 
of Patiala (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 -
Regulation 14 and 29. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The respondents having completed more 
E 
than 10 years of service in the Bank on the date of 
retirement; fulfill the requirement of qualifying service as 
per Regulation 14 of State Bank of Patiala (Employees) 
Pension Regulations, 1995. [Para 22] [908-B] 
2. Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 
F 
provides that if broken period is more than six months, 
it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the 
respondents-writ petitioners having completed more than 
19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are 
to be treated to have completed 20 years of service. [Para G 
24] [908-D-E] . 
Bank of Baroda vs. Ganpat Singh Deora 2008 (17) 
SCR 1151 :2009 (3) SCC 217; Bank of India vs. K. 
893 
H 
894 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 11 S.C.R. 
~. 
A 
Mohandas and Ors. 2009 (5) SCR 118: 2009 (5) SCC 313 -
distinguished. 
B 
c 
Dharam Pal Singh v. Punjab National Bank 2008 (1) 
PLR 745 - referi:e.d to. 
~} 
Case Law Reference: 
2008 (1) PLR 745 
referred to 
2008 (17) SCR 1151 
distinguished 
2009 (5) SCR 118 
distinguished 
. Pa"ra 3 
Para 6 
Para 6 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 172 
of 2010.· 
· 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2009 of the 
D High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L._P. A. 
No. 312 of 2008 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6540 of 2003. 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 173, 177, 178, 179, 180, 186, 187 of 2010 and 
E 1916 of 2011 
L. Nageshwar Rao, ASG, Sanjay Kapur, A11mol Chandan, . 
Priyanka Das, Shubhra Kapur for the Appellant. 
- ... · 
F 
H. C. Arora, Rajat Sharma, Dr. Kailash Chand, R. S. · 
Kataria, S. K. Gupta, Balbir Singh Gupta, Satpal Singh for the 
Respondents. 
~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
, 
'J 
G 
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. All these..;. 
H 
appeals have been preferred by the State Ban!< of Patiala;;, 
(hereinafter referred to as "Bank")against different judgments, 
and orders passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court at 
Chandigarh but since common issues were involved they were 
• 
• 
STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. PRITAM SINGH BEDI 895 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.] 
heard together and disposed of by the impugned common A 
.judgment. 
2. A number of employees who were allowed to retire from 
the Bank pursuant to scheme called State Bank of Patiala 
Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000(herein after referred to as 
B 
the "Scheme") introduced by Circular dated 20th January, 2001, 
and had completed more than 19 and Y. years of service, in 
whose favour pension was not released by the Bank in 
accordance with the State Bank of Patiala (Employees) 
Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the C 
"Regulations, 1995"). They moved before the High Court for 
direction to the Bank and its authorities to release pension in 
their favour in accordance with the Scheme. By one of the 
judgments dated 22nd October, 2008, learned Single Judge 
of the High Court allowed the writ petitions preferred by some 
of the aggrieved employees (respondents) in C.A. No.172 of D 
2010 and directed to pay pension in their favour. Against the 
said order the Bank preferred LPA No.312 of 2008 before the 
Division Bench, which by the impugned judgment dated 9th 
January, 2009 dismissed the LPA and affirmed the order 
passed by the learned Single Judge. The said impugned 
E 
judgment dated 9th January, 2009 passed in LPA No.312 of 
2008 is under challenge in C.A.No.172 of 2010. 
Some other similarly situated employees who had 
completed more than 19 and Y. years of service and retired 
F 
persons to Voluntary Retirement Scheme also preferred similar 
writ petitions which were allowed. Against the respective 
judgments Bank filed different LPAs which were also dismissed 
by different orders in view of the judgment dated 9th January, 
2009. Against the judgments which have followed the earlier G 
decision, the rest of the civil appeals hav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.