JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased employee late Balaram Mohanty, who was initially appointed as Godown Keeper in State Bank of India, Cuttack Branch on 02.12.1970. Subsequently, he was promoted to the officer cadre in the year 1978 and then to Middle Management Grade (MMGS-II) on 01.08.1988 and posted at Jeypore Branch, Orissa. 2. While the deceased employee was working as MMGS-II, he was placed under suspension on 27.11.1992. A memorandum of charges was communicated to him by the authority on 18.12.1993, while he was working at Jeypore Branch as Field Officer, that in terms of Rule-50 of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975 (for short “Rules, 1975”) corresponding to new Rule 68(1) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (for short “Rules, 1992”) it had been decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the deceased employee in terms of Rule 50(2)(iii) of Rules, 1975 which corresponds to new Rule 62(2)(iii) of Rules, 1992 and proposed to hold an inquiry against him. On the basis of memorandum of charge, it was alleged that the deceased employee contravened Rules 22(4) and 34(3)(i) which correspond to new Rule 50(4) and 52(3) (i) of Rules, 1992. 3. On being called upon to show cause, the deceased employee submitted his reply on 03.07.1995. While denying all the charges, the deceased employee stated that due to non-supply of relevant documents/materials he could not able to file comprehensive defence statement. Without considering the same the Inquiry Officer continued the proceeding and submitted his report on 05.10.1995 stating that imputations no.1 and 2 were proved, imputations no.3(i) and (ii) were not proved and imputation no.3(iii) was partly proved. Considering such report, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of removal from service on 29.07.1996 and treated the period of suspension as such in terms of Rule 50(3)(iii) and 50-A (8)(ii) of Rules, 1975 which correspond to new Rules 68(3)(iii) and 68-A (8)(II) of Rules, 1992, which was communicated to the deceased employee on 12.08.1997. Against the said order of punishment, the deceased employee preferred appeal on 07.10.1996, but the appellate authority vide order dated 12.08.1997 confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal. 4. Against the order dated 12.08.1997, the deceased employee’s wife-petitioner no.1 on 15.09.1998 filed review petition before the Reviewing Authority-Circle Development Officer, State Bank of India. 4. Against the order dated 12.08.1997, the deceased employee’s wife-petitioner no.1 on 15.09.1998 filed review petition before the Reviewing Authority-Circle Development Officer, State Bank of India. Without forwarding the review application, the authority rejected the same on 31.07.1999. When such defect was pointed out, the Circle Development Officer, without forwarding the same to the competent authority, passed another order on 10.04.01 stating that the review was time barred. When petitioner no.1 approached for pension and other pecuniary service benefits, the Circle Development Officer, by observing that the deceased employee had neither completed 50 years of age nor completed 25 years of pensionable services, rejected the claim vide order dated 07.12.1999, hence this application. 5. Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset stated that the petitioners, being the legal heirs of the deceased employee, do not challenge the infirmities committed in the disciplinary proceeding, nor the legality and propriety of the order passed by the appellate authority and confirmed by the reviewing authority, they only seek indulgence of this Court on entitlement of the deceased employee to the pensionary and other pecuniary service benefits. The determination of non-completion of 25 years of service from the date of confirmation of his service cannot sustain in the eye of law. As such, it is contended that the confirmation of service relates back to the initial date of appointment and if that is taken into consideration, it can be safely held that the deceased employee had completed 25 years of service and would be otherwise eligible to get pensionary benefits and other pecuniary benefits admissible to the post held by him by the time he faced the punishment of removal from service by the authority concerned. Non-consideration of the same by the authority amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. 6. Mr. P.V. Balkrishna, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-State Bank of India reiterated the factual matrix as discussed above. Non-consideration of the same by the authority amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. 6. Mr. P.V. Balkrishna, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-State Bank of India reiterated the factual matrix as discussed above. He stated that so far as grant of pensionary benefit and other pecuniary benefits is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled to get pension as per State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules (for short “Pension Fund Rules”), as the deceased employee put in only 21 years and 10 days confirmed service (excluding the period of his suspension of 3 years 8 months and 18 days which period was not treated as duty as per the order of the appointing authority and confirmed by the appellate authority) as against a requirement of completing 25 years of pensionable service. Further, the deceased employee has not completed 50 years of age. To enable himself to earn pension, he is required to have completed at least 20 years of pensionable service with 50 years of age or 25 years of pensionable service irrespective of age. Since the deceased employee does not fulfill any of these criteria, he is not eligible for pension as per Rule 22(i) (a) to (d) of the Pension Fund Rules. As such, temporary service rendered by the deceased employee cannot be taken into account as the same does not form part of ‘pensionable service’. Therefore, the pensionable service started only upon his confirmation in that cadre, which was held on 22.11.1971, though admittedly he was appointed as Godown Keeper from 02.12.1970 and subsequently brought into the clerical cadre. As such, computation of 25 years of service cannot relate back from the date of initial appointment rather it should be from the date of confirmation. If it is from the date of confirmation, then the deceased employee having not completed 25 years of service, he is not entitled to get pensionary benefits admissible to the post. 7. This Court heard Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-State Bank of India, and perused the record. Pleadings between the parties having been exchanged, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission by the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 8. 7. This Court heard Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-State Bank of India, and perused the record. Pleadings between the parties having been exchanged, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the stage of admission by the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 8. As is borne out from the records, this writ petition was filed by the deceased employee assailing the infirmities in disciplinary proceedings on various grounds. After the legal heirs of the deceased employee were impleaded as parties, Mr. S.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs contended during the course of hearing that they do not want to challenge the infirmities committed during the course of disciplinary proceedings but, being the legal heirs of the deceased employee, they seek indulgence of this Court in the matter of rejection of pensionary benefits, by which they have been substantially affected and aggrieved, for being deprived of their livelihood. Therefore, this Court, without delving into the veracity or otherwise of the infirmities committed in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the deceased employee, thinks it just and proper to proceed to decide whether the order passed by the authority rejecting the claim for grant of pensionary benefit was justified or not. 9. In exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 43 the State Bank of India Act 1955, the Central Board of the State Bank of India framed Rules determining terms and conditions of the appointment and service of officers in the Bank called “State Bank of India Officers Service Rules” which has come into force with effect from the 1st day of January, 1992. As such, the said Rule is applicable to the deceased employee. 10. Chapter IV of the Rules, 1992 deals with appointment, probation, confirmation, promotion, seniority, retirement and termination. Rule-19(1) thereof, which is relevant for the purpose of this Case, is reproduced below: “19.(1) An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of fifty-eight years or upon the completion of thirty years’ service or thirty years’ pensionable service if he is a member of the Pension Fund, whichever occurs first. Rule-19(1) thereof, which is relevant for the purpose of this Case, is reproduced below: “19.(1) An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of fifty-eight years or upon the completion of thirty years’ service or thirty years’ pensionable service if he is a member of the Pension Fund, whichever occurs first. Provided that the competent authority may, at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer who has a attained the age of fifty-eight years or has completed thirty years’ service or thirty years’ pensionable service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank, so however, that the service rendered by the concerned officer beyond 58 years of age except to the extent of the period of leave due at that time will not count for purpose of pension. Provided further that an officer who had joined the service of the Bank either as an officer or otherwise on or after July 19, 1969 and attained the age of 58 years shall not be granted any further extension in service. Provided further that an officer may, at the discretion of the Executive Committee, be retired from the Bank’s service after he has attained 50 years of age or has completed 25 years’ service or 25 years’ pensionable service as the case may be, by giving him three months’ notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof. Provided further that an officer who has completed 20 years’ service or 20 years’ pensionable service, as the case may be, may be permitted by the competent authority to retire from the Bank’s service, subject to his giving three months’ notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof unless this requirement is wholly or partly waived by it. From the aforementioned provisions, it is clear that an officer at the discretion of the Executive Committee, could be retired from the Bank’s service after he attained 50 years of age or completed 25 years service or 25 years pensionable service, as the case may be, by giving him three months’ notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof. 11. Chapter-IX of the Rules, 1992, which deals with terminal benefits, under Rule-45 it has been provided as follows: 45. 11. Chapter-IX of the Rules, 1992, which deals with terminal benefits, under Rule-45 it has been provided as follows: 45. Unless otherwise directed by the competent authority and subject to the provisions of the rules of the State Bank of India Employees’ Provident Fund and the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund, every officer shall become a member of each of the said funds, if he is not already a member, and shall subscribe and agree to be bound by the rules of these funds. It follows from the aforesaid that, if not otherwise directed by the competent authority, every officer shall become a member of the State Bank of India Employees’ Provident Fund and the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund, if he is not already a member, and shall subscribe and agree to be bound by the rules of these funds. 12. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, the Central Board of the State Bank of India after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, framed the regulations to provide for the establishment and maintenance of a pension fund for the benefit of the employees of the Bank in pursuance of clause (0) of Sub-section (2) of Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 known as the “State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules” which has come into existence with effect from 1st July, 1955. In the aforesaid Rules, “Member” has been defined under Sub-rule (2) of Rule-1 which is quoted below: “(2) xxxxxxx “Member means any person in the service of the Bank who has been admitted to the membership of the fund”. Rules-7, 8, 14 and 22, which are necessary for effective adjudication of the matter, are quoted below: “7. In the aforesaid Rules, “Member” has been defined under Sub-rule (2) of Rule-1 which is quoted below: “(2) xxxxxxx “Member means any person in the service of the Bank who has been admitted to the membership of the fund”. Rules-7, 8, 14 and 22, which are necessary for effective adjudication of the matter, are quoted below: “7. Save as provided in rule 8, every permanent employee (including a permanent part-time employee who is required by the Bank to work for more than six hours a week) in the service of the Bank who is entitled to 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 Fund under the terms and conditions of his service.” “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 (b) 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 specifically declared by the Bank to be non-pensionable.” xx xx xx “14. An employee dismissed from the Bank’s service for willful neglect or fraud shall forfeit all claims upon the fund for pension.” xx xx xx “22.(i) 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 that he is incapacitated for further active service; (c) After having completed twenty years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at his request in writing. (d) After twenty five years’ pensionable service.” On perusal of the provisions quoted above, it is made clear that in terms of Rule-7 every permanent employee in the service of the Bank who is entitled to pension benefits under the terms and conditions of his service shall become a member of the Fund from the date from which he is confirmed in the service of the Bank or the date from which he may be required to become a member of the pension fund under the terms and conditions of his service. Rule-8 stipulates the conditions on which an employee of the bank shall be eligible to be a member of the pension fund. Rule-14 provides that an employee dismissed from the Bank’s service for willful neglect or fraud shall forfeit all claims upon the fund for pension. Rule 22 (i) provides that on retiring from the Bank’ service, a member shall be entitled to pension subject to the conditions prescribed under sub-rules (a) to (d). 13. Applying the aforesaid Rules to the facts of the present case, it is seen that undisputedly the deceased employee was appointed as Godown Keeper in the State Bank of India on 02.12.1970. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of clerk on 22.09.1971 and his services were confirmed on 22.11.1971. As such, his date of birth is 17.10.1946. He was punished by the disciplinary authority on 29.03.1996 by imposing penalty of removal from service, which was confirmed by the appellate authority on 12.08.1997, as well as by the reviewing authority on 10.04.2001. The denial of grant of pensionary benefit, as would be apparent from Annexure-8 dated 07.12.1999, was due to non-completion of 50 years of age and non-completion of 25 years of pensionable service from the date of confirmation, by the deceased employee. If the computation is made from the date of birth, i.e., 17.10.1946 then, till the date of imposition of punishment, i.e., 29.03.1996, the deceased employee would complete only 49 years 5 months and 12 days. Thereby, he does not fulfill the requirement of 50 years of age, as required under sub-rule (a) of Rule 22(i). Furthermore, the services of deceased employee, having been confirmed on 22.11.1971, calculating from the date of confirmation of his service, it cannot be said that the deceased employee had completed 25 years of service. Thereby, he does not fulfill the requirement of 50 years of age, as required under sub-rule (a) of Rule 22(i). Furthermore, the services of deceased employee, having been confirmed on 22.11.1971, calculating from the date of confirmation of his service, it cannot be said that the deceased employee had completed 25 years of service. As such, under sub-rule (d) of Rule 22(i), the deceased employee cannot be entitled to get pension. More so, the deceased employee having not been retired from service but having faced with the punishment of removal from service, nonetheless had complied with any other conditions stipulated in sub-rules (a) to (d) of Rule 22(i). 14. As per the service sheet maintained by the State Bank of India, which was produced on 07.04.1917 before this Court pursuant to order dated 29.11.2016, it is contended that the computation of 25 years was made from the date of confirmation of service, i.e., 22.11.1971. As such, if the determination is made from that date, the petitioner has not completed 25 years and he has rendered only 24 years 4 months and 7 days of service. 15. According to Black’s Law dictionary pension means: “Retirement benefit paid regularly (normally monthly), with the amount of such based generally on length of employment and amount of wages or salary of pensioner. Deferred Compensation for services rendered.” The definition of “pension” in Article 366 (17) of the Constitution reads as follows: “’Pension’ means a pension, whether contributory or not, of any kind whatsoever payable to or in respect of any person, and includes retired pay so payable, a gratuity so payable and any sum or sums so payable by way of the return, with or without interest thereon or any other addition thereto, of subscriptions to a provident fund.” The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 defines “pension as including gratuity except when the term pension is used in contradistinction to gratuity. But the same rule defines the expression “retirement benefit” as including pension or service gratuity and retirement gratuity where admissible.” 16. In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630 , the apex Court held that “pension” as “deferred salary” In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1409 , the apex Court held that “pension” is not a bounty payable at the suit will and pleasure of the Government. 17. In U.P. Raghavendra Acharya v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 9 SCC 630 , the apex Court held that “pension” as “deferred salary” In Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1409 , the apex Court held that “pension” is not a bounty payable at the suit will and pleasure of the Government. 17. It is no more res integra that in view of deletion of Article 31 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978, the pension remains protected as property under Article 300-A of the Constitution, which means that a right to pension can only be taken away by the authority of law. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 07.12.1999 passed by the Circle Development Officer under Annexure-8 rejecting the claim of the deceased employee and, subsequently, the pensionary benefits to the petitioners-legal heirs of the deceased employee, for non-compliance of the provisions contained in Rules-7 and 22 of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being bereft of merits. However, there shall be no order as to cost.