Top News

SC Denies Pension to Employee: Dismissing a pension petition filed by a former SBI employee, the Supreme Court observed that merely completing 20 years of service is insufficient; it is mandatory to fulfill all stipulated regulations—including the requirement of attaining the age of 50.

SC Denies Pension to SBI Employee: In a significant case concerning Voluntary Retirement (VRS), the Supreme Court has dismissed a pension petition filed by a former employee of SBI. The Court stated that simply serving for 20 years does not suffice; it is equally imperative to fulfill all other conditions in strict accordance with the applicable rules.

Essentially, the employee in question had resigned after rendering over 20 years of service and subsequently claimed a pension. Upon examining the matter, the Court determined that the case did not pertain to Voluntary Retirement (VRS), but rather to a voluntary resignation from service. A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that retirement benefits can be granted only if the employee meets the eligibility criteria prescribed by the relevant regulations. Citing the applicable rules, the bench emphasized that two specific conditions must be fulfilled.

What Was the Case?

The employee joined SBI as a clerk in 1978, and his appointment was confirmed in 1979. His career took an unexpected turn in 1989 when he reportedly resigned from his position to take up employment abroad. According to the respondent (SBI), the employee began remaining absent without permission between January 21, 1998, and December 11, 1998. In response to his unauthorized absence, the bank issued notices on June 6, 1998, and November 12, 1998, directing the employee to report back for duty and provide an explanation for his absence.

As the bank received no response from the employee, it formally declared that he had voluntarily abandoned his services effective December 12, 1998. The counsel further argued that this is not a case of voluntary retirement, but rather a case of voluntary resignation, as the employee was employed abroad and residing there. Subsequently, in 2004, the employee attempted to rejoin the service, but this time the bank flatly refused.

In July 2008, the bank rejected this request, stating that the employee had voluntarily retired. The employee's counsel argued that he had completed over 20 years of service (specifically, 20 years, 3 months, and 25 days) and was, therefore, entitled to a pension under Rule 22(i)(c) of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules. Conversely, the counsel for SBI (the Additional Solicitor General – ASG) contended that the appellant's pensionable service fell short of the prescribed eligibility criteria. Furthermore, at the time of leaving service, he had not yet attained the age of 50, thereby rendering him ineligible for pension benefits under Rule 22(i)(a).

Subsequently, after hearing arguments from both sides, the Court observed that there are two essential conditions for entitlement to a pension:

A minimum of 20 years of service.
Attainment of 50 years of age at the time of leaving service.
On these grounds, the employee's petition was dismissed.

The inquiry revealed that the employee's actual service tenure was less than 20 years—approximately 19 years and 9 months—and, moreover, his age was also under 50 years. Additionally, the Court clarified that this was not a case of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The employee was not granted VRS; rather, he had abandoned his service without providing any prior notice, and consequently, he could not claim the benefits typically associated with VRS. The Supreme Court unequivocally stated that a claim for a pension cannot be sustained without fulfilling the requisite rules and conditions. On this basis, the employee's petition was dismissed.