JUDGMENT : V.G. ARUN, J. 1. The appellant, an octogenarian soldier, who had volunteered to serve the country during the first Indo-Pak war, leaving the comforts of his office at the State Bank of India, clamour for recognition of the service rendered by him to the motherland. Are we to turn the appellant away on the ground of delay in voicing his grievance or should he be afforded a hearing is the question we are faced with in this appeal. 2. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the first respondent to grant the petitioner suitable compensation for the effect on his emoluments from 1963 to 1980 as a result of First Respondent's arbitrary omission to consider the petitioner for promotions to which he was otherwise eligible during his Army Service and the cumulative effect of such promotions on his service after joining the army on deputation from the first respondent in 1963 together with interest at a reasonable rate. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the first respondent to pay damages of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the petitioner due to the callous and inhuman attitude of the first respondent.” 3. A brief narration of facts, as stated in the writ petition, are as follows: The appellant had joined the State Bank of India as a Probationary Assistant in the year 1957. He was subsequently promoted and was working as Accountant-I when the first national emergency was declared in the wake of the war between India and Pakistan. The Government called for volunteers from among able bodied men, both employed and otherwise. As far as persons in the employment of the Central Government and its institutions were concerned, it was assured that the period spent by the persons who volunteered for service in the Armed Forces would be treated as service in their parent organization for the purpose of their seniority and other benefits. Motivated by patriotism, the appellant volunteered for military service. On being selected, the appellant, underwent military training and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the I-Armed Brigade and posted at the Sialkot Sector in 1964, at the war front. Motivated by patriotism, the appellant volunteered for military service. On being selected, the appellant, underwent military training and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the I-Armed Brigade and posted at the Sialkot Sector in 1964, at the war front. The appellant continued his military service up to 1967 and thereafter rejoined as an Accountant at the Madurai Branch of the SBI. According to the appellant, contrary to the assurances and promises, his military service was not reckoned as service with the SBI, which resulted in his juniors being promoted during his absence. In 1971, the appellant was posted as a Faculty Member at the State Bank of India Staff College at Hyderabad where he continued till 1974. In 1974, he was sent on deputation to Tanzania as Senior Lecturer at the Institute of Finance Management, where he continued till 1980. On completion of five years service outside India, the appellant was directed to report back. But, being disillusioned and disheartened by the treatment meted out to him by the employer, the appellant resigned from service in 1980. Even though the appellant requested for disbursal of retirement benefits, including pension, that was not heeded to, in spite of repeated representations. The appellant therefore approached this Court by filing W.P (C) No. 7310 of 2012, which resulted in Exhibit P2 judgment. Under Ext.P2, this Court directed the General Manager and Head, Grievance Redressal Machinery, SBI to consider the appellant's representation and pass appropriate orders thereon within three months. The appellant alleges that no proper decision was taken and communicated to him in compliance of Exhibit P2. Therefore, he issued Exhibit P3 legal notice demanding damages to the tune of Rs. 1 Crore for the hardships and sufferings he had to undergo, as a result of the discriminatory action of the employer. The Bank issued Exhibit P4 reply discarding the claim of the appellant as untenable and stating that the appellant's grievance had already been considered and rejected pursuant to the direction in Exhibit P2 judgment. Yet again, the appellant caused a legal notice to be issued, to which the Bank replied under Exhibit P6, reiterating its earlier stand. 4. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found that the appellant had failed to establish that he was denied promotion or that any of his juniors were promoted. It was therefore held that no question of compensation arises. 4. Under the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found that the appellant had failed to establish that he was denied promotion or that any of his juniors were promoted. It was therefore held that no question of compensation arises. It was further found that the claim for compensation was hopelessly time barred. The appellant was found to be at fault for not being vigilant in ventilating his grievance at the right point of time. Finding no reason to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this distance of time, the same was dismissed. 5. We heard the appellant, who appeared in person and made elaborate submissions. We also heard Sri. Syamanthak B.S. who addressed arguments on behalf of the State Bank of India, as also Sri. Hariraj M.R. who assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae. 6. The appellant submitted that the reason for delay in approaching this Court was the long bout of depression suffered by him, which was diagnosed as bi-polar disease. Along with the appeal, Annexures I to VI are produced, in support of the claim that the appellant was being treated for bi-polar disease. The appellant also produced his Record of Service (Officers) issued by the Adjutant General's Office, Army Headquarters, to prove that he had served as an officer of the Indian Army from 26.2.1964 to 1.7.1967. The appellant relied on O.M. No. 22011/7/86-Estt.(D) dated 3.7.1986 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India containing instructions and guidelines on seniority to contend that seniority of civil servants, who are permitted to take up military service during emergency and of Civil Government Servants, who are members of Defence Services/Territorial Army/Auxiliary Air Force, and called up for military service during emergency, is reckoned as service in the parent department for all the purposes. It is contended that the appellant was not granted any service benefits by the Bank at the time of his resignation, even though he had rendered 22 years and 5 months of unblemished and dedicated service. It is submitted that the case of the appellant is unique in the history of the State Bank of India, since the appellant was the only officer who had volunteered to render military service, when called upon by the country. It is submitted that the case of the appellant is unique in the history of the State Bank of India, since the appellant was the only officer who had volunteered to render military service, when called upon by the country. It is further submitted that while the Bank had granted monetary rewards and promotions to sports persons and cricketers, who were employed with the Bank, the appellant alone was discriminated against. It is contended that the appellant is entitled to get suitable compensation for the loss of promotions and service benefits and consequent mental agony suffered by him. The appellant has quantified the compensation at Rs. 1 crore. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, pursuant to Exhibit P2 judgment, the Bank had, for the purpose of considering the appellant's representation, called for particulars from (i) State Bank of India Chennai Circle (ii) State Bank Staff College, Hyderabad (iii) State Bank of India, International Banking Group of Corporate Centre, Mumbai and (iv) State Bank of India Central Accounts Office, Calcutta. That, the said branches had informed that none of the particulars pertaining to the appellant could be traced and that, unless the appellant's Provident Fund Index number is furnished, it is impossible to ascertain the details. It is submitted that in compliance of Exhibit P2 judgment, the appellant's representation was considered and rejected under Exhibit R3(a) order, expressing inability to verify the appellant's claim for terminal benefits in the absence of necessary details being furnished by the appellant. It was further pointed out that the Chennai LHO books/records do not reveal any outstanding payment to be made to the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that O.M. No. 22011/7/86- Estt.(D) dated 3.7.1986 do not apply to the employees of the SBI. The O.M makes it clear that the principles laid down therein shall apply to the determination of seniority in Central Civil Services and Civil posts, except such services and posts for which separate principles have already been issued or may be issued by the Government. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in having rejected the claim for compensation, in the absence of any evidence in support of the claim and in view of the inordinate delay in raising the claim. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in having rejected the claim for compensation, in the absence of any evidence in support of the claim and in view of the inordinate delay in raising the claim. It is contended that the appellant is not entitled even for pension, since the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules do not provide for grant of pension to an employee who has resigned from service. 8. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the finding of the learned single Judge that the claim for compensation is not supported with any evidence regarding discrimination and the consequent loss sustained by the appellant, cannot be faulted. It is submitted that the medical records produced by the appellant in support of his claim that he was suffering from bi-polar disease, though not sufficient reason to condone the long delay in approaching the court, is proof of the fact that the appellant had been under treatment for bi-polar. It is submitted that even though the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules do not provide for grant of pension to an employee who had resigned from service, the Rule do not contain any bar. It is pointed out that the minimum period of qualifying service for grant of pension to an employee who had taken voluntary retirement under Rule 22(i)(c) being 20 years and the appellant having completed 22 years of service, he should be considered to have voluntary retired from service, thereby entitling him for proportionate pension. 9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae, the medical records of the appellant evidences the fact that he had suffered from bouts of depression for varying spells after resignation from the service of the Bank. Moreover, by Exhibit P2 judgment this Court had directed the Bank to consider the appellant's representation. Exhibit R3(a), issued pursuant to Exhibit P2 judgment, merely states that the Bank was not able to trace out the service records of the appellant and hence not able to consider his claim for retirement benefits. We find an incongruity in Exhibit R2(a), inasmuch as the Bank has stated that it was unable to trace out the service records of the appellant, while at the same time, the Bank goes on to state that, as per the Chennai LHO books/records no payment is outstanding to the appellant. We find an incongruity in Exhibit R2(a), inasmuch as the Bank has stated that it was unable to trace out the service records of the appellant, while at the same time, the Bank goes on to state that, as per the Chennai LHO books/records no payment is outstanding to the appellant. We also take into consideration the fact that the appellant had volunteered for military service, leaving behind the safe environs of his office and a comfortable job, answering the exhortation to all able bodied men to go to war against the enemy. Another relevant aspect is that there was no disciplinary proceedings pending or in contemplation against the appellant at the time when he resigned from service. Based on the above facts and circumstances, we decided to consider the appeal on merits. 10. We are in complete agreement with the finding of learned Single Judge that no material was placed before the court to prove that the appellant was discriminated against by granting promotions to his subordinates and by not reckoning the period of his military service. It is trite law that a person claiming compensation for damages should first establish the damages suffered by him. In that view of the matter, we reject the appellant's claim for compensation of Rs. 1 crore. 11. The only other question is as to whether, on equitable considerations, the Bank could be directed to consider the appellant's entitlement for pension. According to the appellant, he had worked with the Bank from, 1957 to 1980. The exact date on which the appellant had joined and had resigned from service is not stated. We refuse to accept the contention of the Bank that it is unable to trace out any record pertaining to the appellant's service. Such a contention put forth by the premier public sector Bank of the country cannot be countenanced. Hence, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we presume that the appellant had rendered more than 22 years of service, including his spell with the Indian Army. The fact that the appellant had been re-appointed by the Bank after his military service, definitely indicate that the Bank had treated the appellant to have been in service even during the period he had served as an officer of the Indian Army. 12. The fact that the appellant had been re-appointed by the Bank after his military service, definitely indicate that the Bank had treated the appellant to have been in service even during the period he had served as an officer of the Indian Army. 12. The State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules, formulated in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 provides for grant of pension to the employees of the Bank. Rule 22 of the Rules, which is contextually relevant, reads as follows: “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 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.” 13. The Rule shows that a member of the Fund retiring from the Bank's service, would be eligible for pension, if he had completed 20 years of pensionable service and had attained the age of 50 years. (iii) A member who has been permitted to retire under clauses 1(c) above shall be entitled to proportionate pension.” 13. The Rule shows that a member of the Fund retiring from the Bank's service, would be eligible for pension, if he had completed 20 years of pensionable service and had attained the age of 50 years. A person in the service of the Bank on or after 1.11.1993, having completed 10 years pensionable service and having attained the age of 58 years, as also a person in the service of the Bank on or after 22.5.1998, having completed 10 years pensionable service and having attained the age of 60 years is entitled for pension. The date of birth of the appellant, as revealed from his record of military service is 23.8.1936. Therefore, when the appellant resigned from the Bank in 1980, he would have attained 44 years of age. In such circumstances, the appellant would not be eligible for pension under Rule 22(i)(a). Rule 22(i)(b) would apply only in the case of an employee, who, after having completed 20 years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained satisfies the authority competent to sanction his retirement, by approved medical certificate or otherwise, that he is incapacitated for further active service. The appellant has no case that he was relieved from service on medical grounds. Then, the question arises as to whether the appellant would be entitled for the benefit under Rule 22(i)(c), available to an employee, who, after having completed 20 years pensionable service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained, retires at his request in writing. As per Rule 15, the retirement of all officers of the Bank shall be subject to the sanction by the competent authority designated by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of the Bank from time to time. Therefore, for the purpose of voluntarily retiring from service, an employee has to make a request in writing which has to be sanctioned by the competent authority. 14. The question as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, resignation from service could be treated as voluntary retirement was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sashikala Devi vs. Central Bank of India and Others, (2014) 16 SCC 260 . 14. The question as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, resignation from service could be treated as voluntary retirement was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sashikala Devi vs. Central Bank of India and Others, (2014) 16 SCC 260 . In Sashikala Devi case (supra), even though the employee had, by letter dated 8.10.2007, resigned from his employment, the Apex Court accepted the contention that, what the employee intended to do by his letter dated 8.10.2007 was to seek voluntary retirement and not resignation from his employment. The factor which weighed with the Court was that, at the time of writing the letter, the employee was left with just about one-and-a-half years of service and it would be too imprudent for any one to suggest that a Bank employee who had worked with such commitment to earn the appreciation of the Management would have so thoughtlessly given up the retirement benefits in the form of pension etc., which he had earned on account of his continued dedication to the job. The Apex Court therefore held that, pension not being a bounty but a right which the employee acquires on account of long years of sincere and good work done by him, the Court will be slow in presuming that the employee intended to waive or abandon such a valuable right without any cogent reason. The Supreme Court went on to hold that at any rate there ought to be some compelling circumstance to suggest that the employee had consciously given up the right and benefit, which he had acquired so assiduously. 15. A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Asger Ibrahim Amin vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (2016) 13 SCC 797 . Therein, the appellant had worked for 20 years and had tendered his resignation in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960, which, according to the Apex Court, does not distinguish between the termination of service by way of resignation on the one hand and voluntary retirement on the other. It was also noticed that there was no provision for voluntary retirement at the time when the appellant had submitted his resignation. It was also noticed that there was no provision for voluntary retirement at the time when the appellant had submitted his resignation. In Asger Ibrahim, the Apex Court relied on the decision in Sheel Kumar Jain vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2011) 12 SCC 197 to hold that the appellant ought not be deprived of pension benefits merely because he styled his termination of service as resignation or because of an absence of provision for voluntary retirement at that time. It was held that the commendable objective of the Pension Rule is to extend the benefit to a class of people to tide over the crisis or vicissitudes of old age, and if there are some inconsistencies between the statutory provision and the avowed objective of the statute, so as to discriminate between the beneficiaries within the class, the ends of justice obligates the Court to palliate the differences between the two and reconcile them as far as possible. The Court proceeded to hold that it would be failing in its duty, if the Court goes by the letter and not by the laudatory spirit of the statutory provisions and the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. The appellant had also rendered more than 20 years of pensionable service and had no other reason to resign, other than his disgruntlement due to the failure of the Bank to acknowledge his military service. Following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Sashikala Devi and Asger Ibrahim (supra), we would have directed the Bank to grant proportionate pension to the appellant. But, in the recent decision of the Apex Court in Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India vs. Shree Lal Meena, (2019) 4 SCC 479 , the distinction between retirement, including voluntary retirement and resignation and the in-applicability of the pension scheme to employees who had resigned from service was considered. The Apex Court took specific note of Rule 23 of the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1955, which provided for forfeiture of the entire past service and qualification for pensionary benefits of an employee whose services stood terminated consequent to resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement. The Apex Court took specific note of Rule 23 of the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1955, which provided for forfeiture of the entire past service and qualification for pensionary benefits of an employee whose services stood terminated consequent to resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement. It was also found that there was no provision for voluntary retirement at the time when the appellant therein had tendered resignation and that his claim based on the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1955, which was promulgated five years after his resignation, was a misadventure. 17. In the instant case also, Rule 22(i)(c) of the SBI Employees Pension Fund Rules, providing for voluntary retirement, was incorporated only on 20.9.1986, by which time the appellant had resigned from service. Therefore, the entitlement of the appellant for proportionate pension, treating his resignation as voluntary retirement has to be considered by the competent among the respondents, which exercise has so far not been undertaken by the Bank. In this context, we also take note of the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that there is no provision under the SBI Employees Pension Fund Rules does not contain any provision akin to Rule 23 of the LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1955 which provides for forfeiture of the entire past service and qualification for pensionary benefits of an employee whose services stood terminated consequent to resignation or dismissal or removal or termination or compulsory retirement. We also take note of Regulation 55 of the State Bank of India General Regulations, 1955 dealing with the powers of the Central Board of the Bank with regard to staff. Regulation 55(2)(e) empower the Central Board to grant pensions, other than pensions provided for under the Rules of the Pension Funds respectively applicable to them, to officers and other employees leaving the service of the State Bank. Therefore, the Central Board of the Bank is conferred with power to grant pension, other than pensions provided for under the Rules of the Pension Funds, to the employees. 18. Therefore, the Central Board of the Bank is conferred with power to grant pension, other than pensions provided for under the Rules of the Pension Funds, to the employees. 18. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent among the respondents to consider the appellant's entitlement for pension under Rule 22(i)(c) of the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules and in the event of the appellant not being found eligible, to place the matter before the Central Board of the State Bank of India, for consideration in accordance with Regulation 55(2)(e) of the SBI Regulations, 1955. The consideration of the appellant's entitlement for pension, by the competent authority shall be completed and orders passed thereon within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 19. The writ appeal is disposed of, modifying the impugned judgment to the above extent. No order as to costs.