JUDGMENT : BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. 1. State Bank of India through its officers have challenged the judgment and order dated 10th August, 2018 passed in W.P No.34722(W) of 2013 by a learned Single Judge of this Court directing the appellants to take steps for releasing the pensionary benefit in favour of the respondent No.1 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of such judgment. 2. The respondent No.1 as writ petitioner filed W.P No.34722(W) of 2013 stating, inter alia, that he joined service in the State Bank of India, Calcutta Main Branch in the subordinate cadre on 6th August, 1979. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant (Accounts) in the State Bank. In course of his service, he was posted in different branches of the bank and while he was working at Fort William Branch, Calcutta, he received a letter to show cause, vide letter baring No.Br.17-111 dated 22nd January, 2002 why disciplinary action would not be taken against him for certain irregularities, and/or forgery allegedly committed by him in course of his official duties. The respondent no.1 denied all the allegations levelled against him in writing on 23rd March, 2002. However, on 27th September 2002, the controlling authority of the respondent No.1, viz, appellant No.3 herein, initiated disciplinary action against the respondent No.1 by issuing a charge-sheet on different counts. The disciplinary authority suspended him from service with effect from 23rd May, 2002 pending disciplinary proceeding. On culmination of disciplinary proceeding, the respondent No.1 was proposed to be punished with removal from service together with superannuation benefits, i.e, pension, provident fund and/or gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations, prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment. Against the said order, he preferred a departmental appeal which, however, yielded no result. 3. Challenging the order of punishment, the respondent No.1 filed W.P No.4389(W) of 2005 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a judgment and order dated 29th July, 2009. The said order was also unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent No.1 in F.M.A No.680 of 2010. 4. 3. Challenging the order of punishment, the respondent No.1 filed W.P No.4389(W) of 2005 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by a judgment and order dated 29th July, 2009. The said order was also unsuccessfully challenged by the respondent No.1 in F.M.A No.680 of 2010. 4. In the second round of litigation, the respondent No.1 by filing W.P 34722(W) of 2013 has alleged that though he was removed from service by the disciplinary authority with superannuation benefits, viz, pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment, the Assistant General Manager (HR), State Bank of India by a letter dated 22nd March, 2012 rejected his prayer for grant of pension on the ground that he did not fulfil the criteria as mentioned in Rule 22(I)(a) and 22(I)(d) of the SBI Pension Fund Rules. The said communication was impugned in the above numbered writ petition. 5. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of Baroda vs. S.K. Kool (1) through Legal Representative and Another reported in (2014) 3 WBLR (SC) 444 was pleased to allow the writ petition and directed the bank to release pensionary benefits in favour of the respondent No.1 within a period of three months. 6. In the case of S.K.Kool (Supra), the employee of the appellant-Bank had suffered the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise and without disqualification from future employment. The bank, however, had refused to grant leave encashment and pensionary benefits relying upon regulation 22 of the Pension Regulations, which reads as follows:- “22. Forfeiture of Service.- (1)Resignation or dismissal or removal or termination of an employee from the service of the bank shall entail for forfeiture of his entire past service and consequently shall not qualify for pensionary benefits.” The appellant bank urged before the Supreme Court that in view of the provision of forfeiture contained in Rule 22, an employee being removed from service forfeits his past service and consequently, the employee did not qualify for pensionary benefits. The Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the punishment that the employee, i.e., S.K. Kool, was visited with a punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits. The Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the punishment that the employee, i.e., S.K. Kool, was visited with a punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits. It was held in the aforesaid report that the punishment imposed and regulation 22 had to be harmonised so as to give effect to the punishment imposed in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002/27th May, 2002 on Disciplinary Action and Procedure. The said Memorandum of Settlement was arrived at by and between the Indian Banks’ Association and their workmen representated by the All India Bank Employees’ Association, National Confederation of Bank Employees, Indian National Bank Employees’ Federation and is commonly called as Bipartite Settlement. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment of S.K Kool (supra) are relevant and reproduced below:- “14. The Regulations do not entitle every employee to pensionary benefits. Its application and eligibility is provided under Chapter II of the Regulations whereas Chapter IV deals with qualifying service. An employee who has rendered a minimum of ten years of service and fulfils other conditions only can qualify for pension in terms of Regulation 14 of the Regulations. Therefore, the expressions “as would be due otherwise” would mean only such employees who are eligible and have put in minimum number of years of service to qualify for pension. However, such of the employees who are not eligible and have not put in required number of years of qualifying service shall not be entitled to the superannuation benefits though removed from service in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement. Clause 6(b) came to be inserted as one of the punishments on account of the Bipartite Settlement. It provides for payment of superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise. 15. The Bipartite Settlement tends to provide a punishment which gives superannuation benefits otherwise due. The construction canvassed by the employer shall give nothing to the employees in any event. Will it not be a fraud upon Bipartite Settlement? Obviously it would be. From the conspectus of what we have observed we have no doubt that such of the employees who are otherwise eligible for superannuation benefit are removed from service in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement shall be entitled to superannuation benefits. This is the only construction which would harmonise the two provisions. Obviously it would be. From the conspectus of what we have observed we have no doubt that such of the employees who are otherwise eligible for superannuation benefit are removed from service in terms of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement shall be entitled to superannuation benefits. This is the only construction which would harmonise the two provisions. It is well-settled rule of construction that in case of apparent conflict between the two provisions, they should be so interpreted that the effect is given to both. Hence, we are of the opinion that such of the employees who are otherwise entitled to superannuation benefits under the Regulations if visited with the penalty of removal from service with superannuation benefits shall be entitled for those benefits and such of the employees though visited with the same penalty but are not eligible for superannuation benefits under the Regulations shall not be entitled to that.” 7. Mr. Subrata Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate for the appellants placed before us a copy of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April, 2002/27th May, 2002, which was arrived at in terms of the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. Clause 6 of the settlement refers to various kinds of punishment that may be imposed on an employee found guilty of gross misconduct. In the instant case, admittedly the respondent No.1 had been visited with the punishment referred to in Clause 6(b) of the said settlement the terms of which have already been stated above. 8. It is urged by Mr. Sinha that an employee who was removed from service with superannuation benefits under Clause 6(b) of the settlement may be entitled to pension and provident fund and gratuity or only pension or only provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations of the Bank. The phrase “and/or” denotes that a removed employee with superannuation benefits may either be entitled to superannuation benefits including pension or any of the superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing at the relevant time. 9. Mr. Sinha next draws our attention to the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955 (hereafter the said rules). Rule 22 of the said rules provides as follows:- “22. 9. Mr. Sinha next draws our attention to the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955 (hereafter the said rules). Rule 22 of the said rules provides as follows:- “22. (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 or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 1.11.93, after having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of fifty eight years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or after 22.05.1998. After having completed ten years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of sixty 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. (ii) A member who has attained the age of fifty-five years or who shall be proved to the satisfaction of the authority empowered to sanction his retirement to be permanently incapacitated by bodily or mental infirmity from further active service (such infirmity not being the result of irregular or intemperate habits) may, at the discretion of the trustees, be granted a proportionate pension. (iii) A member who has been permitted to retire under Clauses 1(c)above shall be entitled to proportionate pension.” 10. According to Mr. Sinha Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement speaks about the punishment of removal from service with superannuation benefits as would be otherwise due as a penalty for gross misconduct committed by an employee of the bank. Rule 22 of the SBI Employees’ Pension Fund Rules delineates situations when an employee of the State Bank of India shall be entitled to a pension. According to him, the respondent No.1 did not fulfil either of four clauses [(a) to (d)]. He could have been entitled to pension on fulfilment of either of the said four clauses but not otherwise. According to him, the respondent No.1 did not fulfil either of four clauses [(a) to (d)]. He could have been entitled to pension on fulfilment of either of the said four clauses but not otherwise. The respondent No.1 did not complete 25 years’ of service; hence, he was not entitled to pension in spite of he having completed more than 22 years of service. 11. It is also urged by Mr. Sinha that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.K. Kool (Supra) is distinguishable having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as the said reported judgment deals with a question as to whether a removed employee of Bank of Baroda would be entitled to pension are not. In the instant case, the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules was framed by the Central Board of the State Bank of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the with the previous sanction of the Central Government. Such Rules do not postulate grant of pension to an employee of the State Bank of India on completion of ten years’ qualifying service, which is applicable to the employees of Bank of Baroda. Therefore, the principle laid down in S.K. Kool (Supra) is not applicable in the instant case. 12. Mr. Mrinmoy Bhattachariya, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and order passed in W.P No.34722(W) of 2013. According to him, the Bipartite Settlement on disciplinary action and more particularly Clause 6(b) of the said settlement would be redundant if a harmonious construction be not made with the Rules. The respondent No.1 served the Bank for more than 22 years. According to Rule 22(1)(c) of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, an employee is entitled to a pension after having completed 20 years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has repeatedly urged us to consider Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement along with Rule 22(1)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules for giving harmonious construction in the matter of granting pension to respondent No.1 relying on the principle laid down in S.K. Kool. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has repeatedly urged us to consider Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement along with Rule 22(1)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules for giving harmonious construction in the matter of granting pension to respondent No.1 relying on the principle laid down in S.K. Kool. 13. In the case of C. Jakob vs. Director of Geology and Mining reported in (2008) 10 SCC 115 , the Supreme Court had the occasion to examine the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978 and corresponding provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and was pleased to hold that if a Government servant is not otherwise entitled to pension, he cannot obviously be granted pension on termination of his service. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition was of the view that a harmonious construction should be made between the nature of punishment and the right of an employee who has been visited with a punishment of removal with superannuation benefits with that of Rule 22(I)(c) of the Pension Rules. The Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank and others vs. Sanwar Mal reported in (2004) 4 SCC 412 examined the UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995, which was arrived at on the basis of a settlement between the Bank Authority and its employees and described the nature of pension scheme of the Bank as hereunder:- “Suffice it to state that the entire Regulation 3 refers to retirees only and not to those who have resigned or been dismissed/removed from the Bank. Regulation 5 deals with the constitution of a pension fund. It states that the Bank shall constitute a fund under an irrevocable trust within the specified period to provide for payment of pension/family pension in accordance with the Regulations. It further provides that the Bank shall be a contributor to the said fund to ensure that the trustees make due payments to the beneficiaries under these regulations. A bare reading of Regulation 5 indicates that the fund will be managed by the trustees and the beneficiaries are the employees covered by the Regulations. Regulation 6 inter alia states that on constitution of the said fund, the Provident Fund Trust shall transfer to the pension fund the accumulated balance of the contribution of the Bank to the provident fund along with the interest accrued thereon up to the date of transfer. Regulation 6 inter alia states that on constitution of the said fund, the Provident Fund Trust shall transfer to the pension fund the accumulated balance of the contribution of the Bank to the provident fund along with the interest accrued thereon up to the date of transfer. Regulation 7 deals with composition of the pension fund. It states that pension shall consist of the contribution by the Bank at the rate of 10% per month of the pay of the employee; the accumulated contributions of the Bank to the provident fund along with interest accrued up to the date of transfer; the amount consisting of contributions of the Bank along with interest refunded by the employees who retired before the notified date but who opted for pension in accordance with the Regulations; the investment in annuities/securities purchased out of the moneys of the fund; annual contribution by the Bank and income from investments. Regulation 7, therefore, indicates that the Scheme is a self-financing scheme to be run on the basis of contributions from the employees and the Bank. It further shows that it is a funded scheme, which is not dependent upon budgetary support. Regulation 14 inter alia states that an employee who has rendered a minimum of 10 years of service in the Bank on the date of his retirement shall qualify for pension.” 14. It was further held by the Supreme Court in Sanwar Mal (supra) that in a self financing scheme, a separate fund is earmarked as the scheme is not passed on budgetary support. It is essentially based on adequate contributions from the members of the fund. The scheme essentially covers only retirees as the credit balance to their provident fund account is larger as compared to employees who resigned from service. 15. It is essentially based on adequate contributions from the members of the fund. The scheme essentially covers only retirees as the credit balance to their provident fund account is larger as compared to employees who resigned from service. 15. Under Rule 22 of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, employees’ entitlement to pension accrues on retirement from the Bank Service if any one of the following conditions is present:- (a) In terms of Rule 22(1)(a), if he has completed 20 years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of 50 years, or, (b) he was in service on or after 01.11.1993, then after having completed ten years of service provided that he has attained the age of 58 years, or, (c) he was in service on or after 22.05.1998, then after having completed ten years pensionable service, provided, that he has attained the age of 60 years. In terms of Rule 22(1)(b), if he has completed 20 year’s pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, upon satisfying the authority competent to sanction his retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise, i.e, he is incapacitated for further active service. In terms of rule 22(1)(c), if he has completed 20 years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, at his request in writing. In terms of Rule 22(1)(d), after 25 years pensionable service. 16. In the case of Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju vs. Branch Manager State Bank of India reported in (1997) 1 SCC 256 , the appellant, an employee of State Bank of India, was removed from service on the finding of misconduct recorded by order dated 25.05.1990. He filed a writ petition claiming payment of provident fund and pension. The High Court dismissed the writ petition which was affirmed by the Division Bench. The appellant preferred an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court after detailed discussion of various provisions contained in Rule 22 of the Pension Rules held:- “We cannot accept the said contention as correct. Clauses 22(i)(c) envisages only that after completing 20 years of pensionable service, if an incumbent retired at his request in writing and was permitted to retire, he would be entitled to pension. In other words, for voluntary retirement, on completion of 20 years of pensionable service, clause (c) of Rule 22(1) gets attracted. Clauses 22(i)(c) envisages only that after completing 20 years of pensionable service, if an incumbent retired at his request in writing and was permitted to retire, he would be entitled to pension. In other words, for voluntary retirement, on completion of 20 years of pensionable service, clause (c) of Rule 22(1) gets attracted. It does not apply to an officer who was removed from service for misconduct. Under these circumstances, the High Court has not committed any error of law warranting interference. Merely because, on a wrong advice, another employee was given pension after removal from service, the same cannot be made a ground under Article 14 to perpetuate the same mistake. So, Article 14 does not apply and no discrimination arises.” 17. The above decision in Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju (supra) was not placed for consideration before the Supreme Court in the subsequent decision of S.K. Kool (supra). 18. A question may crop up as to whether harmonious construction of Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement prescribing removal of an employee for gross misconduct with superannuation benefit and State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules is at all possible or not. 19. Rule 14 of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules states:- “14. A employee dismissed from bank’s service for wilful neglect or fraud shall forfeit all claims upon the fund for pension.” 20. By way of harmonious construction, this forfeiture clause is waived in case of an employee who is removed from service on gross misconduct of wilful neglect or fraud with superannuation benefit. But in order to get such superannuation benefit in the form of pension, he must fulfil the criteria prescribed in Rule 22. 21. In the instant case, though the respondent No.1 completed 20 years pensionable service, at the relevant point of time, he did not attain the age of 50 years. He had also not completed 25 years of pensionable service. Therefore, the appellant No.3 rightly rejected his prayer for grant of pensionary relief vide letter dated 20th March, 2012. 22. It is needless to say that the employees of the State Bank of India get pension from the accrued interest of a corpus known as the “State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund”. The said fund is managed by the board of trustees. 22. It is needless to say that the employees of the State Bank of India get pension from the accrued interest of a corpus known as the “State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund”. The said fund is managed by the board of trustees. It was created by accumulation of provident fund contribution of the employees of the Bank and employer’s contribution. The pension’s scheme contained in the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules is a complete Code by itself. There cannot be any departure from the conditions enumerated in Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules in order to get pension by a removed employee, which is due otherwise. 23. The learned Single Judge refused to place reliance upon the ratio decided in Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju (Supra) on the ground that the judgment in S.K. Kool (Supra) is a subsequent decision, but Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju (Supra) was followed by the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision in State Bank of India vs. Radhe Shyam Pandey reported in (2015) 12 SCC 451 where it has been held:- “In Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju, (1997) 1 SCC 256 it has been clearly held, for voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of pensionable service, Clause (c) of Rule 22(1) gets attracted. Another aspect need to be noted. State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules has been framed under Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act 1955. The rule has statutory force. The concept of any kind of promissory estoppel, if any could not be applicable to promote or condone the breach of law. 24. In State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs. Rajesh Chander Sood and others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 77 , the Supreme Court held:- “71. We are also of the view that there is merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent employees, inasmuch as, the seeds of the right to receive pension, emerge from the very day an employee enters a pensionable service. From that very date the employee commences to accumulate qualifying service. His claim for pension would obviously crystallise, when he acquires the minimum prescribed qualifying service, and also, does not suffer a disqualification, disentitling him to a claim for pension.” (emphasis supplied) 25. From that very date the employee commences to accumulate qualifying service. His claim for pension would obviously crystallise, when he acquires the minimum prescribed qualifying service, and also, does not suffer a disqualification, disentitling him to a claim for pension.” (emphasis supplied) 25. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that as respondent No.1 did not fulfil any of the condition mentioned in Rule 22(1) of the Pension Fund Rules, he is not entitled to get any pension on the ground that pensionary relief was not due otherwise to.... thereunder. 26. For the reasons recorded the above, judgment and order passed in W.P No.34722(W) of 2013 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The instant appeal is allowed on contest, however, without costs. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Dipankar Datta, J. : I agree