Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 419 (MP)

State Bank of India v. P. D. Agarwal

2025-07-28

ANAND PATHAK, HIRDESH

body2025
ORDER Pathak, J:-- 1. With consent heard finally. 2. The present appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred against order dated 15.5.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed in W.P.No.11296/2020, whereby petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed and appellant/Bank is directed to recalculate the pension as per last pay drawn to the post of MMG Scale-II and the arrears be paid to him along with interest @ 6%. 3. Precisely stated facts of the case as surfaced before the writ Court is that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner (respondent herein) in the year 1995 for allegedly committing certain acts of misconduct while posted as Assistant Manager at Rewa Branch. After conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the appointing authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service. Against the said order of major penalty, an appeal was preferred and after due consideration, the appellate authority dismissed the said appeal. 4. Against said dismissal of appeal, petitioner (respondent herein) preferred review petition before the committee constituted under State Bank of India Officers Service rules and prayed for passing of order in terms of rule 69(3) of State Bank of India Officers Service rules. The Review Committee which consists of Chief General Manager (Treasury) and Chief General Manager (Personnel and HRD) in Para 6 modified the order of penalty by substituting "dismissal of service" by "removal of service" with the further modification that for the unauthorized absence of petitioner, he will not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits including salary and allowances from the date of his unauthorized absence to the date of superannuation. 5. Petitioner stood retired on 30.11.1996 from the post of MMG Scale-II. At the time of retirement of petitioner, salary given to MMG Scale –II was Rs.9,700/-. As per 6th bipartite settlement dated 1.7.1997, made applicable w.e.f. 30.6.1993, the salary of employees working on MMG Scale-II was re-fixed. Since petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly between the period 12.08.1991 to 11.3.1993 and joined only for one day on 12.3.1993 and again remained absent between the period 13.3.1993 to 30.11.1996, prior to implementation of 6th bipartite settlement (which was made applicable w.e.f. 30.6.1993), his salary was not re-fixed. He was not found dis-entitled to get pension on last drawn salary after re-fixation. 6. He was not found dis-entitled to get pension on last drawn salary after re-fixation. 6. It is the submission of counsel for petitioner (respondent in writ appeal) that new pay scale was implemented w.e.f. 30.6.1993 whereas he stood retired on 30.11.1996. Therefore, he was entitled to get the benefit of last pay drawn by him in respect of pension fixation. 7. Counsel for respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that as per State Bank Of India (hereinafter referred as 'SBI') notification dated 15.9.2014, Regulations namely State Bank Of India Employees Pension Fund Regulations – 2014 (hereinafter referred as “Pension Regulations”), petitioner is not entitled to get pension on the basis of revised bipartite settlement. Learned counsel referred the Regulations 21 and 23 in support of submissions to bring home the analogy that he is not entitled to get the revised pension as per new bipartite settlement. 8. Heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 9. In the instant case, petitioner remained absent for a considerable period of time as referred above, however, stood retired on 30.11.1996. As per the submissions of both the parties, award dated 1.7.1997 was implemented w.e.f. 30.06.1993, and at that time, petitioner was in the job. Although, he remained absent from 12.8.1991 to 11.3.1993 and from 13.3.1993 to date of his superannuation i.e. 30.11.1996. Therefore, he remained absent for more than 5 years and during that period attended the office only for one day i.e. on 12.3.1993. Rest of the period was treated as no work no pay. 10. Respondent joined office only for one day i.e. 12.3.1993 and after 12.3.1993, respondent /employee again remained absent without any sanctioned leave 13.3.1993 till 30.11.1996. On 1.7.1997, respondent/employee never worked when 6th bipartite settlement came into existence.This is a factor to be reckoned with. 11. As per Pension Regulations, pension is required to be calculated on the basis of every years pensionable service and said pensionable service is defined in Regulation-21 which clarifies the position. Pension Regulation -21 is reproduced as under:- 21. Pensionable service.- No period of leave granted without leave salary or of absence without leave shall count as pensionable service. 11. As per Pension Regulations, pension is required to be calculated on the basis of every years pensionable service and said pensionable service is defined in Regulation-21 which clarifies the position. Pension Regulation -21 is reproduced as under:- 21. Pensionable service.- No period of leave granted without leave salary or of absence without leave shall count as pensionable service. Salary has also been defined in Pension Regulation 2(i) which is also reproduced as under:- Regulation 2 (a) xxx (b) xxx (c) xxx (d) xxx (e) xxx (f) xxx (g) xxx (h) xxx (i) Salary means the substantive or basic pay. Pension Regulation-23 of the regulation provides the manner in which the pension is required to be calculated. The said Regulation reads as under:- 23. Computation of pension. – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-regulations (2) and (3), the pension payable under regulation 22 shall be the amount calculated at the rate of one-sixtieth part of every year’s pensionable service of the average monthly substantive salary drawn during the last twelve months’ pensionable service. Therefore, if Regulation-2(i) Regulation-21 and Regulation-23 are seen in juxtaposition then it reflects the legal position that any period in which leave has not been granted or the leave granted is without leave salary, then it will not be counted as pensionable service. 12. In case at hand, admittedly the entire period right from 12.8.1991 till 30.11.1996, respondent/ employee was on leave without sanction and further in fact, the employee given punishment for remaining absent without grant of leave. Therefore, this period is not required to be counted for pension purpose. Any revision of pay happening in this period cannot be taken into consideration for employee. The Pension Regulation-23, makes it clear that the pension is required to be calculated @ one-sixtieth part of every year pensionable service of the average monthly substantive salary drawn during the last 12 months' of pensionable service. Therefore, computation is required to be done on the basis of salary drawn during the period of pensionable service. Admittedly, respondent/ employee has not worked for more than 3 years prior to superannuation without any sanctioned leave and that period will not be counted as pensionable service and employee is entitled to get his pension fixed on the basis of last 12 months' salary drawn in the period which can be referred to as pensionable service. 13. Admittedly, respondent/ employee has not worked for more than 3 years prior to superannuation without any sanctioned leave and that period will not be counted as pensionable service and employee is entitled to get his pension fixed on the basis of last 12 months' salary drawn in the period which can be referred to as pensionable service. 13. Once the period in which the employee was absent, cannot be held to be pensionable service, therefore, even the notional salary of that period cannot be taken into consideration for computing the pension under Pension Regulation-23 and on the basis of notional fixation of pay, the pension cannot be granted. Manner of calculation of pension is to be governed by the Regulation-21 and 23 of Pension Regulations. 14. Perusal of order passed by the Review Authority, it is clear that it was a mercy petition and considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, committee felt that penalty of removal from service would meet the ends of justice and therefore, modified the order of penalty issued by the Appointing Authority. Dismissal from service would not have entailed any pensionary benefits to the employee therefore, Review Committee modified the order as removal from service. Review Authority knowingly well that employee may claim any pecuniary benefit as raised in petition therefore, clarified with special stress on 'Unauthorized Absence' that he is not entitled to any pecuniary benefit including the salary and allowances from the date of his unauthorized absence to the date of superannuation. 15. If any other meaning is given to order of review authority then it would be miscarriage of justice. Employee cannot get premium over the leniency shown by Employer. He remained absent unauthorisedly between the period 12.8.1991 to 11.3.1993. 16. In Black’s Law Dictionary (10th Edition) Pecuniary Benefits are defined as under:- “Pecuniary benefit is a benefit capable of monetary valuation.” Similarly in Advanced Law Lexicon (4th Edition) by P. Ramanatha Aiyer, Pecuniary is defined as under:- “Pecuniary” really means no more than that the interest must be capable of valuation by a Court. 17. Going through the meaning of the word pecuniary (benefit), it is clear that it means the benefit capable of monetary value. 17. Going through the meaning of the word pecuniary (benefit), it is clear that it means the benefit capable of monetary value. Therefore, once the review committee held that employee will not be entitled for pecuniary benefit, it means that the employee will not gain any monetary advantage in the period he has not worked. It further means that he is not entitled to get monetary benefit in the form of pension on the pay scale which was never granted to the employee because of order of punishment. Pecuniary benefits include revision of pay which the employee was never provided on account of punishment order. Therefore, employee is not entitled to get salary and other pecuniary benefits including pension for that period. 18. Even otherwise, employee has not rendered any service in the pay scale which the employee is claiming for the purpose of computation as pension. It is trite law that the pension is always paid on the basis of past services rendered by an employee. 19. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances of the case, learned writ Court glossed over the provisions of Law / Pension Regulations as well as fact situation, thus caused illegality. Ergo, impugned order cannot be permitted to stand therefore, it is hereby set aside. 20. Resultantly, appeal stands allowed and petition stands dismissed. Respondent employee is not entitled to get pension as per the 6th bipartite settlement. However, he is entitled to get the benefit as fixed by the employer/appellant bank earlier. 21. The appeal stand allowed and disposed of.