ORDER Asok Potsangbam, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Sachindra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. K. Somorjit Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank. 2. The issue involved in this case is whether the late husband of the Petitioner would have been entitled to become a member of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund introduced by the State Bank of India Employees' Pension fund Rules 1955 as amended from time to time. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is that her late husband joined State Bank of India Imphal Branch, Manipur, on 25.12.1958 thereafter, his service was confirmed on 25.7.1959. At the time of confirmation of his service as an employee of the SBI, the Petitioner's late husband was 35 years 4 months 24 days. 3. According to Rule 8(c) of the State Bank of India Employees Fund Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1955), no employee would be eligible to become a member of the pension fund if he is over 35 years of age. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of Rule 8 of the Rules, 1955, is reproduced hereinbelow: Rule 8. Every whole time permanent employee in the service of the Bank who is entitled to the pension benefits under the terms and conditions of his service shall become a member of the fund from. (a) the date from which he is confirmed in the service of the Bank. OR (b) the date from which he may be required to become a member of the fluid under the terms and conditions of his service. Provided: (a) he is not 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) he is not below 21 years of age. (c) he is not over 35 years of age. (d)... (e)... 4. Provided: (a) he is not 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) he is not below 21 years of age. (c) he is not over 35 years of age. (d)... (e)... 4. Rule 22 of the Rules, 1955, which provides for Eligibility for pension, is as follows: (1) A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from the Bank's service: (a) After having completed twenty years' pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty years: (b) After having completed twenty years' pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise he is incapacitated for further active service. (c) After twenty-five years' pensionable service. 5. This petition is filed by the Petitioner is the widow of late S. Babu Singh who expired on 14.12.94, claiming pension on behalf of her late husband from the date it became due to her late husband and also family pension for the Petitioner herself. The grievance of the Petitioner, as projected in this writ petition, is that her late husband had already crossed 35 years 4 months and some days on the date he was confirmed in the service of SBI and on this ground, he was refused by the Respondents to become a member of the SBI Employees Pension Fund by invoking Pension Rules 8(c). 6. The Petitioner further submits that pension was erroneously and illegally denied to her late husband due to misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the relevant Rule as extracted herein above. It is not in dispute that when the late husband of the Petitioner retired from service on 22.2.1982, after completion of 58 years of age, he had already completed 22 years 7 months of service in the SBI. Thus, it is submitted that by invoking Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rule, 1955, pension should have been granted to the late husband of the Petitioner and consequently, the Petitioner would have also been entitled to family pension. 7. Thus, it is submitted that by invoking Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rule, 1955, pension should have been granted to the late husband of the Petitioner and consequently, the Petitioner would have also been entitled to family pension. 7. The Respondent bank submitted an affidavit disputing the contentions and claims of the Petitioner on the ground that the husband of the Petitioner was over-aged when he was confirmed in the service of the bank on 25.7.1959 and as such, the restriction imposed by Rule 8(c) of the Rules, 1955 was applicable and as a result, the late husband of the Petitioner could not be allowed to become a member of the Pension Fund. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank that when the late husband of the Petitioner reached the age of 50 years he had not completed 20 years of service. In fact, only 15 years of service was completed by the late husband of the Petitioner when he attained the age of 50 years and therefore, Rule 22(1)(a) was not applicable in the case of the late husband of the Petitioner. In view of the conflicting submissions advanced by the parties, this Court called for the original rule in order to find out the intent, purpose and meaning of the Rule 8 and Rule 22 of the Rules, 1955 as extracted hereinabove and also to find out how these apparently conflicting Rules can be reconciled and harmonised. 8. Undoubtedly, pension Rules are framed by the authority, be it Government or any other authority, with an object to ensure that employees, after retirement from service, do not suffer from want of minimum material requirement and family pension is meant for providing minimum subsistence allowance to the widow and children of retired employees. Therefore, it is imperative that when it comes to interpretation of Pension Rules, one must bear in mind that interpretation of Pension Rules should only be made to facilitate payment of pension to the retired employees, if not expressly prohibited by Rules. In other words, while implementing pension rules, no obstacles should be created against the meaningful implementation of the Pension Rules. 9. In other words, while implementing pension rules, no obstacles should be created against the meaningful implementation of the Pension Rules. 9. Keeping in mind of the above principle, this Court is to search the intent and purpose of the Pension Rules, 1955 and also to find out the possible reconciliation and harmonisation of apparently the two conflicting provisions of the Pension Rules, 1955 i.e. Rule 8(c) and 22(1)(a) of the Pension Rules, 1955. In plain reading, it may be understood that an embargo is placed by Rule 8(c) that an employee can not become a member of the pension fund if he has already attained 35 years of age and above, at the time of confirmation of service in the Bank, whereas Rule 22(1)(a) provides that an employee shall be eligible for pension under the Rules if he has completed 20 years of service in the Bank and has attained 50 years of age and above. The former appears to be prohibitary and the later is an enabling provision. It must also be clearly understood that pension is not a bounty but is an entitlement earned by an employee after rendering long service in the office. 10. Similar nature of issue, now involved in the instant case, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the State Bank of India v. L. Kanniah and Ors. reported in AIR 2003 SC 3860 . In the aforesaid case, some of the Respondents therein had already completed 35 years of age and above at the time of confirmation in the service of the Bank and consequently, they were refused pension by invoking Rule 8(c). At the same time, Respondents therein retired at the personal age of 58/60 after completion of more than 20 years service in the Bank. In the aforesaid case, the Apex Court, after consideration of both the provision of Rule 8 and Rule 22 of the Pension Rules, held as follows: reasons for prescribing maximum age of 35/38 years, as the case may be, for the purpose of induction in the pension fund appears to be that the employee should be able to render minimum service of 20 years as contemplated by the Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules. The Apex Court further held that: the minimum qualifying service being the essential condition, there is no reason why a person who had completed 20 years of service and who had also attained the age of 50 years and above should not be entitled to pension in terms of the Rules 22(1)(c). In the aforesaid case, the Respondent/SBI was a party and as such, the decision rendered by the Apex Court on the issue, is binding upon the Respondent/SBI. Thus, it is not permissible for the SBI to take any stand contrary to the aforesaid decision rendered by the Apex Court as discussed above. There cannot be any denial that the facts of the instant case are more or less identical with the facts of the case before the Apex Court. 11. In view of the finding of the Apex Court that the very purpose of prescribing 35 years of age in Rule 8(c) is limited for the purpose of enabling an employee to complete 20 years of service in the Bank, an employee on completion of 20 years of service in the Bank and on attaining of 50 years of age and above is definitely entitled to Pension under Rule 22(1)(a) of the Pension Rules, 1955. It appears that there cannot be any second interpretation to the one already interpreted by the Apex Court as discussed above. 12. Mr. Sachindra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case of her late husband is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in State Bank of India v. L. Kanniah and Ors. (supra). Mr. Sachindra has also referred to Rule 22(1)(c) of the Pension Rules, 1955, which stipulates that a person will be entitled to pension after completion of 25 years of pensionable service and this Rule 22(1)(c) would mean and be referable to those cases where one could complete 25 years of service even before completion of 50 years of personal age. If an employee after completion of 25 years of service but before attaining 50 years of personal age, choose to take voluntary retirement from the service of the bank, he would still be entitled to pension in terms of Rule 22(1)(c) whereas in a case falling within the purview of Rule 22(1)(a), a person needs to complete 20 years of service and attain 50 years of age in order to entitle him to pension under the Rule. The distinction between the provision of Rule 22(1)(a) and 22(1)(c) on the one hand as discussed above and the provision of Rule 8 on the other hand, in conjoint reading, would make it clear that there is no conflict between/among the Rules and they can be well harmonised in their interpretation and implementation. 13. Petitioner's late husband having completed 22 years and 7 months at the time of retirement at the age of 58 years, he would definitely be entitled to pension under Rule 22(1)(a) and as such, denial of pension to the husband of the Petitioner is arbitrary, unsustainable in law. Accordingly, an interference is called for from this Court. 14. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I have no hesitation to hold that the Petitioner's late husband was entitled to pension from the date of retirement i.e. 28.2.1982 till his death on 14.12.1994 and thereafter, Petitioner would be entitled to family pension in terms of family pension Rules introduced by the SBI in the year 1986. Accordingly, Respondents are directed to grant pension to the late husband of the Petitioner within 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter, family pension shall be accorded to the Petitioner in accordance with the relevant rules. 15. With the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. 16. Before parting, this Court would like to put on record the co-operation extended by the learned Counsel appearing for the SBI by providing relevant Rules/Acts to the Court. No costs. Petition disposed of.