JUDGMENT : Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. The present intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, assails the judgment dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P(C)No.19157 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. 2. The appellants herein were the respondents in the writ petition whereas the respondent was the petitioner. The respondent had filed the writ petition on the issue whether a retired officer of the State Bank of India is eligible for transfer travelling allowance and transportation charges in case he settles down in a foreign country and whether it is limited to those who settle down within India. 3. The respondent had filed the writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: “a. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be paid the traveling allowance on retirement by respondents 1 and 2 as per Rule 43 of Exhibit P1 Service Rules; b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, direction or Order, directing the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 to pay the traveling allowance on retirement to the petitioner as per Rule 43 of Exhibit P1 Service Rules, as expeditiously as possible. c. Issue a Writ of Certitiorari or any other appropriate Writ Direction or Order, quashing Exhibit P5 notice as being violative of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. d. To direct the respondents to pay the costs of this proceedings And d. Grant such other and further reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the interest of justice.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent retired from the State Bank of India while working in Middle Management Grade III, on voluntary retirement with effect from 15.06.2004 and settled down in Horsham in the United States of America. The respondent had challenged Ext.P5 order rejecting his claim for granting transfer travelling allowance and transportation charges, on the ground that he had settled down in a foreign country. The learned Single Judge set aside Ext.P5 order and declared that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 43 of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (‘Rules’ for short) as in the case of any other officer who settle down in India as provided in Rule 43 of the Rules. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the service conditions of the respondent is governed by the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules which came into force with effect from 1st January, 1992. These Rules have been formulated in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act , 1955, determining terms and conditions of the appointment and service of officers in the Bank. He submitted that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there cannot be an interpretation against the employee who does not have the bargaining power and therefore, Rule 43 of the Rules has to be interpreted in favour of the employee. The appellants, therefore, cannot be permitted to interpret Rule 43 in a manner that deprives the respondent of its benefits. The learned Single Judge went on to hold that if at all two views are possible, the view favourable to the employee has to be adopted; otherwise he would be a victim of invidious discrimination. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in concluding that Rule 43 is not to be read in conjunction with Rule 47 or Rule 2(4) of the Rules. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on perusal of Rule 2(4), it is clear as daylight that these Rules cannot be applied outside India. If Rule 43 is read with Rule 2(4), then Rule 43 would only apply to persons settled down in India and not outside India. So far as Rule 47 is concerned, it has no relevance to the issue involved in this case. The learned Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that if there are two possible views, the view favourable to the employee has to be adopted. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Single Judge has committed error in allowing the writ petition and in view thereof the writ appeal deserves to be allowed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent had served the appellant Bank for more than 25 years and he is entitled to all the benefits including travelling allowance on retirement as contemplated under Rule 43 of the Rules. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent had served the appellant Bank for more than 25 years and he is entitled to all the benefits including travelling allowance on retirement as contemplated under Rule 43 of the Rules. The denial of the same by the appellants is improper and against the Service Rules. The learned Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Rule 43 as in the case of any other officer who settled down in India. The learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, prayed that the writ appeal be dismissed. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records. 9. For the sake of convenience, relevant Rules, viz; Rule 2(4), Rule 43 and Rule 47 of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 are extracted below: “Rule 2(4) : These rules shall, however, not apply to employees, officers and advisers appointed/engaged in any country outside India and permanently serving there. Rule 43: 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. Rule 47 : Every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place or deputation to any other organisation, in India……..” 10. Rule 2(4) of the Rules clearly specifies that this Rule would not apply to the employee posted outside India. The learned Single Judge erred in concluding that an employee serving in India would be eligible for transfer allowance even if settled anywhere in the world. The learned Single Judge also failed to consider that, according to Rule 2(4), separate rules have been framed for employees posted in foreign countries. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be countenanced. Accordingly the judgment dated 05.10.2016 passed in W.P(C)No.19157 of 2008 is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, in light of Rule 2(4) of the Rules, the respondent would not be eligible for transfer travelling allowance and transportation charges if he has settled in a foreign country. The writ appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.