JUDGMENT : P.V. Asha, J. 1. The issue arising in this case is whether a retired officer of the State Bank of India is eligible for transfer T.A. and transportation charges in case he settles down in a foreign country and whether it is limited to those who settles down within India alone. 2. The petitioner retired from State Bank of India while working in Middle Management Grade III, on voluntary retirement with effect from 15.6.2004 and he settled down in Horsham in U.S.A. He is receiving pension in his account in U.S.A. Ext. P1 is the rules governing the service conditions of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. As per these rules, the employees who retired from service are eligible for transferring allowance on retirement. Even though terminal benefits were granted to the petitioner, he was not granted transfer travelling allowance. 3. The petitioner submits that in Ext.P2 letter submitted in 2004 and received by the respondents on 17.11.2004, he requested for an advance of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs for the travelling expenses of himself and his family and the cost of transporting his house hold effects from Kochi to Horsham, which is the place where he proposed to settle down on retirement. By Ext.P5 letter dated 17.8.2006, the Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of India, Learning Centre, informed the petitioner that the corporate centre had advised them that provision for payment of travel allowance on retirement in terms of R. 43 of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') is for settling at a place of choice within the country by the retiring official and is not applicable for settling in a foreign country. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to travelling allowance as in the case of any other employee who settles down within India. The petitioner points out that the Service Rules, 1994 does not stipulate any restriction with reference to grant of travelling allowance. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is not entitled to travelling allowance ori the ground that he has settled down abroad. It is their further contention that the travelling allowance is admissible only to those employees who settle down in India. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner is not entitled to travelling allowance ori the ground that he has settled down abroad. It is their further contention that the travelling allowance is admissible only to those employees who settle down in India. According to them, Chapter VIII of the Rules has to be read along with R.47 of Chapter X, which provides liability for transfer to the officers only within India. Relying on R.2(4), it is contended that Ext.P1 rules are applicable only to those officers who are posted within India. It is also pointed out that there are separate rules for officers who are posted outside India. 5. Relevant portion of paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: The Petitioner's service conditions were governed by the Ext. P1 State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (SBIOSR). Chapter VIII of the SBIOSR deals with reimbursement of expenses on travel. R.43 in Chapter VIII deals with the travelling expenses etc., of the Officers on retirement. As per R.43 on retirement an officer will be eligible to claim travelling allowances, baggage and other expenses for himself and his family as on transfer from the last station at which he is posted to the place where he proposes to settle down on retirement. Chapter X of the Rules is with respect to transferability, duty time and joining time of the officers. As per R.47 of the Rules under Chapter X, every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place or deputation to any other organization, in India. It is most respectfully submitted that Ext. P1 service rules shall not apply to employees, officers and advisers appointed/engaged in any country outside India. This is made dear in R. 2(4) of the SBIOSR. Overseas postings are not transfers as contemplated under R. 43 & 47 of the Rules. Such postings are not governed by Chapter VIII & X of the Rules. Overseas postings are governed by special terms and conditions attached to said postings. A combined reading of R.43 & 47 of the rules coupled with R. 2(4) of the rules would make it clear that the benefit under R. 43 is available only to the officer who proposes to settle down on retirement anywhere within India and, not abroad. Overseas postings are governed by special terms and conditions attached to said postings. A combined reading of R.43 & 47 of the rules coupled with R. 2(4) of the rules would make it clear that the benefit under R. 43 is available only to the officer who proposes to settle down on retirement anywhere within India and, not abroad. Address of petitioner's wife given in the nomination for provident fund as per Ext.P3 is notan intimation to the bank that the petitioner is intending to settle down at USA after retirement. Contra averments and allegations in para 1 of the W.P are thoroughly unfounded, incorrect and hence hereby denied. 6. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 7. Service rules are issued in exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 by the Central Board of the State Bank of India. As per R.2(1) the rules shall apply to all officers of the Bank who are appointed or promoted to any of the grades mentioned in R.4 and also to whom any of the following sets of rules viz.(i) rules governing the service of officers in the Imperial Bank of India, (ii) rules governing the service of assistants in the Imperial Bank of India (iii) State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and (iv) State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979, as amended or as deemed to have been amended by the Central Board or the Executive Committee are applicable. As per R.2(3) the rules will apply to officers transferred/posted/deputed outside India except to the extent specifically prescribed by the competent authority. As per R.2(4) these rules shall not apply to employees, officers and advisers appointed/engaged in any country outside India and permanently serving there. Chapter VIII of rules deals with reimbursement of expenses on travel. The travelling allowance for officers on retirement is governed by R.43 which reads as follows: On retirement, an officer will be eligible to claim travelling allowance, baggage and other expenses for himself and his family as on transfer from the last station at which he is posted to the place where he proposes to settle down on retirement., 8. Petitioner claimed travelling allowance on the basis of the above rule. Petitioner claimed travelling allowance on the basis of the above rule. On a reading of R.43, it would see that on retirement the petitioner is eligible to claim travelling allowance, baggage and other expenses for himself and his family from the station of his last posting to the place where he is settling down on retirement, as on transfer. R. 42 provides that an officer on transfer and members of his family will be eligible to travel to place of posting by the same mode of travel and class of accommodation by the officer as in the case of travel on tour. It provides for the transporting expenses also. R.41 provides for the travelling allowances admissible to an officer when he is required to travel on duty. Sub-rule (3) provides for reimbursement of actual expense incurred for transport and porterage, which includes cost of aviation insurance if travelled by air. Sub-rule (4) provides for the rate of halting allowances. Sub-rule (5) provides for the procedure for claiming the allowances/expenses and halting allowance. Bills shall be submitted to the recognised higher authority for verification and approval before being passed for payment. R.44, which dealing with Leave Travel Concession and Leave Encashment which is admissible to officers, also provides for definitions of the expressions "headquarters", "home town", "designated place" etc. Clause (b) of R.44 defines "home town" to mean the place declared by the officer to be his place of domicile in India. Permissible distance is defined to mean the shortest distance between headquarter and home town or designated place. Travelling expenses means a single air/rail/steamer/road fare by the entitled class for the permissible distance, or the actual cost of travelling, whichever is lower. 9. Referring to the provisions contained in R.42,43 and 44 the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that R.42 and R.44 restricts transfer to places within India for the purpose of leave travel concession where as such restriction is absent in R.43. More over there is no definition as far as the expression 'place of settling down on retirement' is concerned or there is no further explanation given with respect to the place where the employee proposes to settle down, as in the case of the definition of home town to be place within India. 10. At the same time, the contention of the respondents is that R.43 provides for allowance on retirement 'as on transfer'. 10. At the same time, the contention of the respondents is that R.43 provides for allowance on retirement 'as on transfer'. Since transfer is restricted to places within India, the allowances are admissible only to a place within India, even after retirement. Therefore provisions contained in R.47 has also to be read along with the provisions contained in R.43. R.47 which is in Chapter X of the Rules which deals with transferability, duty time and joining time is as follows: Every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place or deputation to any other organization, in India. 11. Therefore, it is contended that since R.47 restricts transferability of the officer to the places within India, an officer will be eligible to claim traveling allowance only if he proposes to settle down on retirement in India. The contention of the respondents is that there are separate rules when officers are posted outside India, as provided in sub-rule (4) of R. 2. 12. Rule 41 provides for the rates at which the travelling allowance, halting allowance, lodging, boarding expenses are admissible to officers in each category, while on duty. As far as middle management grade officers are concerned, they are eligible for travel by air (economic class) if permitted by the competent authority while on duty. Rates of halting allowance, lodging, boarding allowance are also given. As per R.42 members of the family are also eligible to travel to the place of posting by the same mode of travel and class of accommodation by the officers as in the case of travel on tour. Family is defined under R.42 and it is limited to spouse and children, parents, brothers and sisters residing with and wholly dependant on the officer. It further provides for transporting expenses. R.42 provides for travelling allowance in the case of officers in service. R.43 provides for travelling allowances and transportation charges on retirement. There is nothing in R.42 or 47 to indicate that a person who retired from service and settling down outside India will not be eligible for travelling allowances on retirement. The expression "as on transfer" occurring in R.43 can only mean the allowances as admissible on transfer. R.43 provides for travelling allowances and transportation charges on retirement. There is nothing in R.42 or 47 to indicate that a person who retired from service and settling down outside India will not be eligible for travelling allowances on retirement. The expression "as on transfer" occurring in R.43 can only mean the allowances as admissible on transfer. The words 'as on transfer' is preceded by the expressions "on retirement, an officer will be eligible to claim travelling allowance, baggage and other expenses for himself and his family" and followed by the expressions "from the last station at which he is posted to the place where he proposes to settle down on retirement." If the rule making authority intended to restrict the benefits to a person settling within India, it could have made it clear as done in R.47. Therefore those expression can only indicate the admissibility of allowances at the same rate as applicable to an officer who is on transfer. In this context the provisions contained in R.24 which relates to perquisites is also relevant, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, where clause 10(a) of R.24 reads as follows: Disease, injury or disablement directly or indirectly due to breach of law or hunting, steeplechasing, polo, winter sports, riding or driving in races or engaging in aviation or ballooning or entering, leaving or travelling in any aircraft or balloon; but this provision shall not be deemed to exclude injury resulting from an accident whilst travelling as a passenger in a fully licensed standard type of aircraft operated by a recognised airline on a regular scheduled air route. (emphasis supplied) 13. From the above provision, it can be seen that benefits of medical reimbursement are excluded in the cases provided therein including the extra-ordinary circumstances like ballooning etc., which remains beyond the anticipation even today. Referring to such provisions for excluding the benefits by incorporating contingencies like ballooning, aviation, etc., which are not contemplated in normal course of human conduct, it is contended that wherever the respondents intended to restrict the benefits, such restrictions are made specific, by such exclusionary clauses or by way of definitions. Therefore, respondents cannot by way of interpretation induct any word or expression which are not expressly included in the rules. Therefore, respondents cannot by way of interpretation induct any word or expression which are not expressly included in the rules. Therefore, as far as R.43 provides for travelling allowance, baggage and other expenses for himself and his family from the last station to the place where he settled down, respondents are not right in disallowing the claim on the ground that these rules are applicable only to those who settle down in India. 14. Respondents do not have a case that it is because of the quantum of expenses incurred or claimed by the petitioner, that he is not allowed the benefit. As per the rules travelling allowance and transport expenses to the place of his abode is one of the terminal benefits admissible to a person who retires from the bank. As long as there is no express provision which restricts the admissibility of travelling allowance, on retirement, the respondents are not justified in denying the same. On a plain reading of the provision, the contention raised by the respondents that R.43 has to be read along with either R.47 or R.2(4) for admissibility and it has to be interpreted as not applicable to the officers who are settling down outside India cannot be accepted. The petitioner has worked only in India and the rules are applicable to the petitioner. It is not stated that the cases of those settling outside India are governed by any other rule or that they are eligible for any other benefit. Petitioner who retired from service after rendering his entire career in offices within India is governed by Ext.P1 Rules and he cannot be denied the benefit of travelling allowance or transportation charges on account of the fact that his retirement home is abroad. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a series of judgments in N.P. Mathai v. The Federal Bank Ltd. (ILR 1993 (2) Ker. 479), West Bengal State Electricity Board & Ors. v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh & Ors. ( AIR 1985 SC 722 ), Central Inland Water Transport corporation Ltd. &Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly &Anr. ( AIR 1986 SC 1571 ), M.K. Agarwal v. Gurgaon Gramin Bank & Ors. ( AIR 1988 SC 286 ), Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Ors. (1991 Supp.(1) SCC 600) etc. v. Desh Bandhu Ghosh & Ors. ( AIR 1985 SC 722 ), Central Inland Water Transport corporation Ltd. &Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly &Anr. ( AIR 1986 SC 1571 ), M.K. Agarwal v. Gurgaon Gramin Bank & Ors. ( AIR 1988 SC 286 ), Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Ors. (1991 Supp.(1) SCC 600) etc. in support of his contention that there cannot be an interpretation against the employee who does not have the bargaining power and therefore R.43 has to be interpreted in favour of the employee. The cases referred to by the learned counsel deal with provisions relating to termination of services and the Apex Court held that termination cannot be effected without issuing notion and consistent with principles of natural justice and that service rules which provide for such termination are illegal. However, the contention that an interpretation against the employee, who has been anticipating terminal benefits on the basis of the rules as it is, and the rules 1972 provided for the travelling allowance to a person on retirement when he settles down on retirement, his legitimate expectation for entitlement of the benefit under R.43 cannot be taken away by way of induction of the words into the rules by the employer which will be arbitrary, has to be accepted. 16. The respondents cannot be permitted to interpret R. 43 in such a way enabling them to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of R. 43. If at all two views are possible, the view favourable to the employee has to be adopted; otherwise he will be a victim of invidious discrimination. The judgment of Apex Court in Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India, ( (1999) 6 SCC 459 ), while considering the claim for disability pension is relevant and apt in this context, wherein it held as follows : "15. It is the duty of the court to interpret a provision, especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the rule. 16. In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All. ER 155 Lord Denning, L.J. (as he then was) held: "When a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. 16. In Seaford Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher (1949) 2 All. ER 155 Lord Denning, L.J. (as he then was) held: "When a defect appears a judge cannot simply fold his hands and blame the draftsman. He must set to work on the constructive task of finding the intention of Parliament, and then he must supplement the written word so as to give 'force and life' to the intention of the legislature.... A judge should ask himself the question how, if the makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck in the texture of it, they wguld have straightened it out? He must then do as they would have done. A judge must not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can and should iron out the creases." 17. This rule of construction is quoted with approval by this Court in M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa ( AIR 1961 SC 1107 ) and also referred to by Beg, C.J. in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC 213 ) and in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lai Sowcar ( (1988) 2 SCC 513 ). 18. Applying the above rule, we are of the opinion that the rule-makers did not intend to deprive the army personnel of the benefit of the disability pension solely on the ground that the cost of the journey was not borne by the public exchequer. If the journey was authorised, it can make no difference whether the fare for the same came from the public exchequer or the army personnel himself." 17. In Shashikala Devi v. Central Bank of India ( (2014) 16 SCC 260 ), the Apex Court while considering whether the request of a Bank employee who rendered 34 years service could be treated as resignation, waiving the admissible terminal benefits reiterated the settled position of law that while interpreting a statute the Court ought to keep the legislative intent in mind and eschew an interpretation which tends to restrict, narrow down or defeat its beneficial provisions. The Bank was directed to treat his letter as one for voluntary retirement. 18. The following observations of the Division Bench of this court in the judgment dated 24.3.2009 in W.P.(C) No.3969/2006, while considering the claim for study leaverelied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also relevant in this context: 2. The Bank was directed to treat his letter as one for voluntary retirement. 18. The following observations of the Division Bench of this court in the judgment dated 24.3.2009 in W.P.(C) No.3969/2006, while considering the claim for study leaverelied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also relevant in this context: 2. Going by the rules, two views are possible. A view in favour of the employee has been taken by the Tribunal. Both sides did not cite any precedent on this point. Normally, by interpreting a rule additional burden cannot be cast on an incumbent who is governed by the rule. If there is vagueness in the rule regarding any liability arising therefrom, normally, vagueness should go in favour of the person affected. Since the interpretation of the rule adopted by the Tribunal being a plausible view, we feel that it is not proper for us to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstances, I am unable to accept the contention raised by the bank that Rule 43 has to be read with R.47 or Rule 2(4). It is clear from the provisions contained in R.2 that the petitioner who was working in the middle management grade is governed by Ext.P1 service rules and he being a person who retired from service is entitled to the travelling allowance as well as transportation charges for himself and his family members at the rates admissible under R.42. Hence Ext.P5 is quashed and there shall be declaration that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of R.43 as in the case of any other officer who settle down in India as provided in R.43. Benefits shall be granted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.