State Bank Pension after 10 years of service

[color=#0000ff]Dear All[/color]

[color=#0000ff]I have served State Bank of India for 19years and 10 months and retired on voluntary retirement scheme on 31.3.2001. As per this scheme one is eligible for pension only when he completes 20 years of substantial service (after completing 20 years and 6 months probation period) even thought other section of employees were eligible for SBI pension just with 10 years of service. For want of few months I am denied SBI pension. I append below the recent Madras High Court judgement. Can any one guide me to get this pension.[/color]

[color=#0000ff]A.G.Akber Sheriff[/color]

[color=#0000ff]Court directive to State Bank on pension benefits [/color]


[align=justify]
[url=https://www.hindu.com/2007/08/26/stories/2007082660320800.htm]https://www.hindu.com/2007/08/26/stories/2007082660320800.htm[/url][/align]
[align=justify]                                    or[/align]
[align=justify][color=#0000ff]Court directive to State Bank on pension benefits [/color][/align]
[align=justify]

[align=justify]Special Correspondent [/align]

[align=justify][/align]
[align=justify][/align]
[align=justify][/align]
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the State Bank of India to extend pension benefits to employees who had retired before November 1, 1993 also, after putting in either 20 years of service, or 10 years as per the amended provision of the SBI Employees Pension Rules.[/align]
Passing orders on the writ appeals of two former employees ΓÇô N. Eswaran and N. Natarajan ΓÇô a Division Bench comprising Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Justice S. Tamilvanan directed the bank to grant pensionary and other consequential retirement benefits to the two and other similarly placed persons ΓÇ£without taking into consideration the cut off date of November 1, 1993.ΓÇ¥

Mr. Eswaran and Mr. Natarajan retired from service in January 1984 and July 1992 respectively. They were denied pension, as Rule 8(c) rendered persons aged above 38 years at the time of appointment from claiming the benefit. During the pendency of the writ petitions filed by them, the Rule was amended and the age of entry into service was increased to 48 years. However, they were still rendered ineligible to claim pension because the amended rule was applicable only to those who retired on or after November 1, 1993 and not to those who had retired earlier.

The petitioners questioned the constitutional validity of the cut-off date and argued that the clause was discriminatory.

The Bench, while ruling that there was an acceptable rationale behind the enhancement of the age of entry into service, held that the cut-off date had been fixed arbitrarily.

The judges said that when the age of superannuation in banks was 55 years, the maximum age of entry into service was 35 years so as to ensure that the employees put in at least 20 years of service to claim pension. The age of entry was increased to 38 after the retirement age was raised to 58. By a subsequent amendment, the minimum period of service for earning minimum pension was reduced to 10 years. Consequently the age of entry too was raised to 48. Thus, the judges said, there was a specific nexus between the minimum period of service to be rendered and the benefit of pension. ΓÇ£It cannot be held to be arbitrary.ΓÇ¥

As regards the impugned cut off date, pointing out that counsel for the bank could not give any reason behind the fixing of the date, the judges said the insertion of the clause was arbitrary and violative of the fundamental right to equality.

They then set aside the single judge order upholding the decision of the bank.

The benefits shall be paid from the date the amended rule came into force. It shall be disbursed within a period of three months, the Bench further stipulated.

[align=justify]
 [/align]