Judgment 1. The petitioner, who retired from the service of the respondent State Bank of India on 30th September, 1992, is aggrieved by denial of his pensionary benefits on the ground that his retirement is before cut-off date and in order to qualify for pension he is short of 4 months 18 days in 20 years of service. 2. In short the relevant facts are that the petitioner before his appointment in the State Bank of India was an Officer in Emergency Army Service between 13.10.1963 to 30.6.1968 and thus completed 4 years 8 months 18 days in Army Service plus Pre-Commission Training of 6 months and 11 days. Later pursuant to the advertisement he was appointed as Technical Officer by relaxing the maximum age in the Bank and he served there for 19 years 7 months 12 days and he is short of only 4 months 18 days for minimum qualifying period for grant of pension. According to the petitioner, he was appointed by giving relaxation of age by more than 3 years and, further, the Bank also caused inordinate delay of two and half years in completing the process of selection as a result thereof he became short of 4 months 18 days for qualifying of grant of pension. At the time of his superannuation the minimum eligibility period for grant of pension in the Bank was 20 years and despite the fact that he earlier worked in the Emergency Army Service for about 5 years the same was not counted and he was denied pensionary benefits on the ground of shortage of minimum eligibility period although he is entitled to continuity of service for the purpose of seniority and pensionary benefits. According to him, he is entitled for counting his Army service for the purpose of pensionary benefits in the service of Public Sector Undertaking including the Reserve Bank of India. Later in the year 1986 under liberalised policy all organisations of the Central Govt. reduced the minimum period for eligibility of pensionary benefits to 10 years of service. The State Bank of India following the said policy belatedly reduced the minimum eligibility criteria but extending it only to those who retired on or after 1.11.1993. The petitioner retired on 30.9.1992 and as such, he has been denied of the said benefit under the liberalised pension policy. The State Bank of India following the said policy belatedly reduced the minimum eligibility criteria but extending it only to those who retired on or after 1.11.1993. The petitioner retired on 30.9.1992 and as such, he has been denied of the said benefit under the liberalised pension policy. He represented before the authority but getting no positive response filed the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank. According to the respondent Bank the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits as he had crossed 35 years of age even as per the advertisement and the age relaxation given to him was for the purpose of appointment and not for pensionary benefits. According to the Bank, the petitioner was not entitled to be a member of the employees Pension fund having crossed the age of 35 years at the time of his appointment. As regards counting of Army Service it is stated that the same cannot be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits as there are no such condition provided in the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner has been appointed. In paragraph 11 it is stated that the liberalised policy of the Central Government was extended by the State Bank of India to the persons who retire on or after 1.11.1993 and the petitioner retired on 30.9.1992, hence he was not entitled to the benefits ensuing out of the liberalised pension policy. With respect to other retiral dues, it is stated that the same has been paid to the petitioner. 4. In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is stated that in the liberalised scheme the minimum eligibility period for pension has been reduced from 20 years to 10 years by an amendment made in pension rules in the year 2001 giving benefit therein with retro spective effect to ail who were/are in service on or after 1.11.1993. In the said pension rules it has also been provided that in respect of members who retired prior to 1.11.1993, service rendered by such employees from the date of their admission to the fund to the date attaining 58 years of age shall be reckoned as service for pension provided that if on the date of attaining the age of 58 years, the employees have to their credit any ordinary or privilege leave, the period of such leave shall be reckoned as service for calculation of pension to the extent they remain in Banks service. According to the petitioner, the total number of privilege leave in his credit at the time of retirement is 4 months 23 days besides some days of ordinary leave also. As such, if these period is counted the total pensionable period of the petitioner will be more than 20 years and he would be entitled for grant of pension. 5. In the second and third supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Bank, the respondent Bank has tried to explain that even under the said Rule the petitioner would not qualify for grant of pension as he did not have the adequate aforementioned leave in his account. Thus, the only dispute is with respect to calculation of number of working days for privilege leave as per the Banks Book on staff matters. The Bank in support of their case has annexed the copy of service sheet No. 2 (leave record) as Annexure G. From the said service sheet it appears that the petitioner earned four months leave during his service career and encashed the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, privilege leave, causal leave actually earned and accumulative can be encashed at any time during service or after retirement. He contended that the method of calculation of privilege leave mentioned in Annexure F/1 to the third supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent shows that the period of privilege leave encashed are to be counted as service. The extract about the privilege leave as mentioned in Annexure F/1 reads as follows: "The amount of privilege leave earned, which shall be on full pay, shall be computed at one day for every 11 days of service on duty. The extract about the privilege leave as mentioned in Annexure F/1 reads as follows: "The amount of privilege leave earned, which shall be on full pay, shall be computed at one day for every 11 days of service on duty. In calculating such period of completed service on duty, the period of privilege leave already availed of by the employee during that year, the period of sick leave, extraordinary leave and materinity leave (if any) granted to the employee and unauthorised absence on loss of pay should be counted as service, as no leave other than casual leave will count for the purpose of computing privilege leave. Further, for such calculation, while the period of privilege leave enjoyed is not counted, the period of privilege leave encashed should be counted as service." 6. He contended that as per the said provision for calculation which the period of privilege leave enjoyed is not counted, the period of privilege leave encashed is to be counted as service. As such, according to him, the period of four months leave encashed by the petitioner from time to time even as per the service sheet at Annexure G is to be counted as service and Annexure G itself shows that besides said four months, two months 26 days more leave is accumulated in his account upto 3.9.1992. Thus, according to him, without going into any further question the total period of leave in the account of the petitioner exceeds much more than the required period which fell short of 4 months 18 days according to the respondent Bank. 7. Learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that as per Clause (c) of the amended Rule in respect of members who retired prior to 1.11.1993 service rendered by such employees from the date of their admission to the fund to the date of attaining 58 years of age is to be reckoned as service for pension provided that if on the date of attaining the age of 58 years, the employces have to their credit any ordinary or privilege leave, the period of such leave only which is to be reckoned as service for calculation of pension to the extent they remain in the Bank Service. Thus, according to her, as per Clause (c) what is relevant is as to how much ordinary or privilege leave is in the actual credit on the date of retirement and not as to the leave already encashed by the employee during his service tenure. 8. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of the learned counsel for the Bank. No doubt under Clause (c) the service is to be reckoned as service for pension provided that if on the date of attaining age of 58 years the employees have to their credit any ordinary or privilege leave and the period of such leave is to be reckoned as service for calculation of pension to the extent they remain in the Bank service but under the Leave Rules which deals with privilege leave the amount of privilege leave earned and enjoyed is not counted, but the period of privilege leave encashed is to be counted as service. Once the period of privilege leave encashed is to be counted as service then I find no reason to reject the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the expression to their credit in Clause (c) of the amended Rule contained in Annexure 4 would include the leave encashed which under the Leave Rules is to be counted as service. This interpretation is further substantiated by the fact that Clause (c) was inserted in the year 2001 to give the benefit under it to all those employees who retired prior to 1.11.1993 and consequently the person who already encashed the privilege leave on retirement is entitled to reckon such leave as service for calculation of pension, under the amended rule even after long lapse of time. As such, there cannot be any justification to deny the said benefit to those who encashed it during the service period from time to time as per admissibility and the same is to be counted as service under the Leave Rules, contained in Annexure F/1. 9. The provision contained in Clause (c) is not that the benefit under it shall be extended in lieu of the leave in credit on the date of superannuation of an employee. 9. The provision contained in Clause (c) is not that the benefit under it shall be extended in lieu of the leave in credit on the date of superannuation of an employee. It is a beneficial provision so as to advance the cause of the employees and it is well settled that a beneficial provision must be meaningfully construed so as to advance the object and curing any lacuna or defect appearing in the same [See: Interpretation of Statutes, Third Edition by Vepa P. Sarathi page 246 and in the case of Transport Corporation of India V/s. Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr., reported in (2000)1 SCC 332 ) (Para 27]. 10. Plain reading of the said provision read with para 3 of Annexure F/1 which deals with as to what extent the privilege leave is to be counted as service shows that it has been incorporated with the sole object to give benefit for the actual total service rendered by an employee and the period of ordinary or privilege leave encashed are to be counted as service obviously for calculation of pension to the extent they remain in Banks service. Thus, in my opinion, to deny the said benefit to those who encashed such leave from time to time before retirement as per its admissibility under the Rules will be unjustified, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 11. Thus, this Court finds that the petitioner possessed the qualifying service for the benefit of grant of pension under the amended Rule (Annexure 4) and denial of said benefit to him under the amended Rule is bad in law, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The respondent Bank is directed to release the pension of the petitioner admissible under the amended Rule alongwith arrear within two weeks, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner which shall be realised from the erring official. In case this order is not complied, the petitioner will be at liberty to file two pages affidavit for revival and for initiating appropriate action.