V. KASTURI versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 09-10-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

V. KASTURI 
A 
11. 
MANAGING DIRECTOR, 
STA TE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 9, 1998 
B 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1979: 
c 
Rule 22(J)(c)-Pension-Additional benefit-Retired employee-
Entitlement to-Held: If a person is entitled to pension at the time of his 
retirement, he is entitled to enhanced pension brought into force after his 
retirement, since he is a member of the same class of pensioners when the 
additional benefit is conferred on all of them-In such a situation, the D 
additional benefit cannot be denied to him on the ground that he has retired 
prior to the date of coming into force of the additional benefit-Constitution 
of India, 1950, Art. 14--State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms 
and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979, Regn. 45--State Bank of India Act, 
1950, S.50. 
E 
Rule 22(/)(c)-Pension--Retired employees-Person drawing pension 
and person not drawing pension-Classification between-Employee retired 
after putting in more than 20 years but less than 25 years-Employee not 
given pension since qualifying service was 25 years-Subsequently, qualifying 
service reduced to 20 years prospectively-Entitlement-Held: If an employee F 
is not eligible for pension at the time of his retirement, he is not entitled to 
extension of pension scheme unless such extension is retrospective-In the 
circumstances of the case, the said employee is not entitled to the benefit of 
extended pension scheme since it is prospective-Such an employee will 
remain outside its sweep. 
The appellant voluntarily retired from the service of the respondent-
Bank after putting in a service of more than 20 years but less than 25 years. 
G 
The appellant was not given pension as the minimum qualifying service for 
earning pension was 25 years under Rule 22(l)(c) of the State Bank of India 
Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1979. Subsequently, the Rules were amended H 
269 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A w.e.f. 20-9-1986 whereby the minimum qualifying service for earning pension· 
was reduced to 20 years. 
The appellant made a representation before the respondent that as he 
had already put in a service of more than 20 years he should get his pension 
at least prospectively i.e. from the date on which the amended provision came 
B into force, which was rejected. Single judge of the High Court allowed the 
writ petition filed by the appellant. However, the Division Bench allowed the 
Writ Appeal filed by the respondent. Hence this appeal, which raised the 
following question : 
C 
Whether the appellant was entitled to get the benefit of the amended 
Rule 22(1)(c) of the Rules from 20-9-1986? 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I. From the various decisions of this Court spread over years, 
D the following legal position clearly gets projected: (293-B) 
Category I 
If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement 
and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant 
pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would 
E become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation 
of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the 
benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he 
would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional 
benefit if being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional 
F benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot to denied to him on 
the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid 
additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of 
pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional 
benefit to these pensioners came into force. (293-C-D) 
G 
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 11983) 1 SCC 305, followed. 
Indian Ex-Services League v. Union of India, [1991) 2 SCC 104; 
Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, [1990) 4 SCC 207; All India Reserve 
Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India, [19921 Supp. 1 SCC 
664; State of Punjab v. Justice S. S. Dewan (Retired Chief Justice), [1997) 
H 4 SCC 569; Dhanraj v. State of J & K, (1998) 4 SCC 30; R. L. Marwaha 
V. KASTURI v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, S.B.I. 
271 
v. Union of India, (1987] 4 SCC 31; T. S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to A 
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expend

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