IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4070 of 2006 Between: A. Madhava Rao S/o Krishna Rao R/o Malkajgiri, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India,repby Secrtary, Ministry of Labour Shramashakti Bhavan, Rafimarg, New Delhi-110 001 2 The Assistant General Manager, Pension, Provident Fund & Gratuirty Department, Head Office, Bank Street, Hyderabad 3 The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Kurnool Branch, Kurnool District-518001 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ, order or orders more particulalry one inthe nature of writ of Mandamus decalrign the Award passed in I.D. No. 18 of 1998 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 21-09-1998 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of the ntural justice consequently direct 3rd respondent call for the records relating to the petitioner in Circular NO. 48/85 dated 11-10-1985 and pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe interest ofjustice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GANESH BHUJANGA RAO VADDURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4070 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Part-Time Watchman in the State Bank of India on 26.10.1966. He was confirmed in that post on 28.04.1967. On 26.02.1973, the petitioner was promoted as a Full Time Messenger. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Clerk on 01.04.1980. On attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.1992. He was not extended the benefit of State Bank of India Pension Fund. Therefore, he approached the Central Government, for necessary action, to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal. Accordingly, through an order, dated 06.02.1998, the Central Government referred the matter to Industrial Tribunal-II, Hyderabad, under Section 10(1)(d) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same was taken as I.D.No.18 of 1998. Through its award, dated 21.09.1998, the Tribunal refused to grant the relief to the petitioner and dismissed the I.D. Hence, this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he has rendered 25 years and nine months service in the Bank and under the relevant scheme, he is entitled to be granted the pension. On behalf of the respondents, it is urged that the Pension Fund Rules are clear to the effect that as on the date of introduction of the scheme, the employee must not have crossed 38 years, whereas the petitioner was aged 41 years. It is also contended that the petitioner was paid additional gratuity amount, since he was found ineligible for being paid pension. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The narrow controversy in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be extended the benefit of pension. The Pension Fund was instituted in the year 1955 and separate Rules were framed for operation thereof. The eligibility for an employee of the Bank to become member of the Fund is stipulated under Rule 8 as under: 8. Save as provided in rule 25, no employee shall be eligible to become a member of the fund- (a) if he is a member of the Imperial Bank of India Employees’ Pension and Guarantee Fund or if he is engaged in any country outside India and appointed for service in such country; (b) if he is below 21 years of age; (c) if he is over 38 years of age; or (d) Whose service is specially declared by the Bank to be non-pensionable. It is clear that as on the date of regular appointment of an employee, he must not be below 21 years and must not have crossed 38 years of age. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was appointed on regular basis as a Messenger on 26.02.1973, his age was 41 years. The petitioner cannot count his part time service, for the purpose of computing the pensionable service. Further, Under Rule 22, an employee must have completed 20 years of pensionable service, by the time he attained the age of 50 years. The petitioner did not fulfill even this condition. The Tribunal took these facts into account and found that the petitioner does not get the eligibility under any of the Rules, for being granted the pension. The record further discloses that on finding that the petitioner is not entitled to be extended the benefit of the pension, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.41,700/- as additional gratuity, over and above the ususal gratuity of Rs.26,169/-. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________ 16.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4070 of 2006 Date: 16.04.2008 JSU