Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 623 (KER)

Abraham T. v. VS State Bank of India

2026-05-22

Harisankar V Menon

body2026
JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. The petitioner in this writ petition was working with the 1 st respondent Bank. He joined the service of the 1 st respondent on 04.07.1994 as Cashier-cum-Clerk. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement under the provisions of the State Bank of Travancore (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’ for short) (Ext.P1). The provisions of Chapter V of the Regulations provide for the ‘Classes of Pension’. Regulation 29 specifically provided for pension with respect to voluntary retirement. Under clause (1) thereto, it is provided that an employee who has completed “twenty years of qualifying service”, on or after 01.11.1993, may seek for voluntary retirement. The petitioner’s prayer for the voluntary retirement as above seems to be rejected by the 1 st respondent Bank, essentially on the ground that the petitioner did not have the required 20 years of service, and he only had 19 years, six months and 28 days’ service. The petitioner, in such circumstances, filed W.P.(C) No.16175 of 2014 before this Court, seeking to rely on the provisions of Regulation 18 of the Regulations, providing for reckoning of “broken period of service of less than one year”, as a full year. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by Ext.P2 judgment dated 25.10.2021, considered the rival submissions elaborately with specific reference to the mandate under Regulation 18. It is worthwhile to notice the prayer made by the petitioner in the afore writ petition, which is extracted in paragraph No.2 of the judgment, as under:- “2. The above order is challenged in the present writ petition. The relief sought is to quash Ext.P4 and to declare that the petitioner had completed 20 years of qualifying service by virtue of Regulation 18 of Ext.P1. Another relief sought was to reckon his pension accordingly.” This Court considered the afore issue and allowed the writ petition as under:- “15. In the light of the above, it is clear that by applying Ext.P5 judgment and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala v. Pritam Singh Bedi and others case (cited supra), the petitioner is entitled for pension, treating his qualifying service as 20 years by virtue of Regulation 18 of Ext.P1. In the light of the above, it is clear that by applying Ext.P5 judgment and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala v. Pritam Singh Bedi and others case (cited supra), the petitioner is entitled for pension, treating his qualifying service as 20 years by virtue of Regulation 18 of Ext.P1. In Ground No. F, the petitioner herein had raised an alternative contention that by virtue of Regulation 32 of Ext.P1, when the petitioner satisfies two conditions specified in sub clause (a) and (b), in as much as he rendered minimum ten years of service and retired from service contemplated by sub clause (b) therein, he ought to have been granted pension accordingly. Though there is strong ground in favour of the petitioner, in the light of my finding earlier under Regulation 29 coupled with Regulation 18, I find no reason to consider the alternative prayer. 16. Having considered the entire facts and in the light of the discussion above, the prayer sought by the petitioner is liable to accepted. The writ petition is accordingly allowed quashing Ext.P4 and directing the respondent to quantify the pension payable to the petitioner and to issue pension payment order as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The pension shall be payable within one month thereafter along with other emoluments, if any.” The respondent Bank sought to challenge the afore findings by preferring W.A. No.1697 of 2021. A Division Bench of this Court, by Ext.P3 judgment dated 14.01.2022, confirmed the findings in Ext.P2 judgment. 2. Even thereafter, the petitioner states that his pension was provided/reckoned under the provisions of Regulation 29, without extending the benefit provided under clause (5) thereto, which provided for reckoning the qualifying service by extending an additional five years of service also. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P7 communication issued by the 3 rd respondent Bank, dated 06.04.2023, denying the benefit under Regulation 29(5). 3. I have heard Sri.P.S.Gireesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank. 4. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P7 communication issued by the 3 rd respondent Bank, dated 06.04.2023, denying the benefit under Regulation 29(5). 3. I have heard Sri.P.S.Gireesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank. 4. Sri.Gireesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the refusal on the part of the 1 st respondent Bank to extend the benefit under Regulation 29(5) is without any justification. He would further add that when this Court had categorically found in Ext.P2 judgment that the pension requires to be reckoned also extending the benefit under Regulation 18, the pension ought to have been quantified applying all the sub-clauses under Regulation 29. 5. Per contra, Sri.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, would state that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed for more than one reason. According to him, this writ petition is hit by the doctrine of constructive res judicata insofar as the petitioner has not raised this contention in the first round of litigation, and piecemeal litigations seeking benefits, is not to be entertained. He would further add that the provisions of Regulation 29 would not apply, since Regulation 29 speaks about “qualifying service” and hence, when admittedly, there was no “duty”, the benefit thereunder is also not to be extended to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 7. As already noticed, the first issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the lis is hit by the principles of constructive res judicata. As already noted, in the first round of litigation, the petitioner was before this Court, seeking to challenge the outright denial of the benefit under Regulation 29, prescribed under Chapter V of the Regulations. The petitioner, as already noticed, sought to challenge Ext.P4 communication issued by the 1 st respondent Bank seeking to deny the benefits thereunder, in that writ petition. Therefore, when ultimately the question, which was considered by this Court, was the outright denial of the benefits under Regulation 29, and when this Court allowed the writ petition by Ext.P2 judgment, holding that the benefits under Regulation 29 ought to have been extended, it was for the respondent to have considered the claim with respect to the provisions of Regulation 29. To put it otherwise, the claim under Regulation 29(5) was never a point for consideration in the first round of litigation. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that Sri.Ramakrishnan would not be justified in contending that the petitioner ought to have specifically raised a contention to the effect that Regulation 29(5) specifically requires to be extended to the petitioner. As already noticed, when the petitioner challenged the outright denial and when the same was answered in his favour, the respondent Bank had a duty to consider the claim entirely under Regulation 29. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the principles of constructive res judicata as suggested by Sri.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain [ 1977 (2) SCC 806 ], may not be applicable. 8. The second issue arising for consideration is as to whether the provisions of Regulation 29(5), as noticed above, would be applicable to the petitioner. Regulation 29(5) reads as under:- “29(5). The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty- three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation.” Here, it may straight away be noticed that the 1 st respondent sought to deny the same for the reasons stated in Ext.P7 communication as under:- “With reference to your letter dated 20.03.2022 received on 23.03.2023, we have to inform you that appropriate authority after examining the matter has opined as follows: “The benefit of additional notional service of 5 years under Regulation 29(5) of SBT Employees Pension Regulations may not be extended in the present case since Shri.Abraham was actually on duty for 19 years 6 months and 28 days and had not completed 20 years of service “on duty” as envisaged under Regulation 29(1).”” Therefore, the 1 st respondent Bank has stated that the petitioner only had 19 years 6 months and 28 days’ service alone and had not completed 20 years of service “on duty” and hence not entitled for the afore benefits. It is this very same contention now repeated by Sri.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, in this writ petition. 9. It is this very same contention now repeated by Sri.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, in this writ petition. 9. As already noted, the petitioner, from the very beginning, had been contending that the petitioner also requires to be extended the benefits under Regulation 18. Regulation 18 reads as follows:- “18. Broken period of service of less than one year – If the period of service of an employee includes broken period of service less than one year, then if such broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be ignored.” (underlining supplied) It is with reference to the provisions of Regulation 18 that the issue was considered originally as to the interpretation of the term “qualifying service”, under Regulation 2(w) of the Regulations, and found that the petitioner also requires to be extended the benefits of Regulation 18. When the benefits of Regulation 18 are extended, the “qualifying service” as regards the petitioner also requires to be reckoned at 20 years. When that be so, the provisions of Regulation 29(1), which operate in a situation where an employee is having “20 years of qualifying service", would entitle him also to the benefits under Regulation 29(5). When Regulation 29(1) is found to apply in Ext.P2 judgment, as already found, the Bank had a duty to apply Regulation 29 as a whole, including clause (5). The interpretation suggested in Ext.P7, to the effect that the petitioner was not on duty during those periods, is not to be accepted for the afore reasons. 10. In my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed for another reason also. In the writ appeal filed against Ext.P2 judgment, the Division Bench of this Court, while rendering Ext.P3 judgment, had also considered the contention raised by the respondent Bank with reference to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in United Bank of India v. Pijush Kanti Nandy and Others [ 2009 (8) SCC 605 ] . In the above case, the Apex Court also had an occasion to consider the question as to whether the benefit under Regulation 29(5) were to be extended in that particular case. In the above case, the Apex Court also had an occasion to consider the question as to whether the benefit under Regulation 29(5) were to be extended in that particular case. However, in that case, the Apex Court noticed that the service was only around 17 years and held that there cannot be any application of the provisions of Regulation 29(5). The observations of the Division Bench of this Court, with reference to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in United Bank of India (supra), is as under:- “17. ……..That was the plea set up by the employee therein. The Apex Court held that Regulation 29(5) would apply on an entirely different frame. It was held that only in a case where an employee has 20 years of service, as construed in Regulation 29(5), can the situation covered by Regulation 29(5) for adding on 5 years as envisaged therein would arise. It is in this context that the Apex Court held that the words “or otherwise” appearing in Regulation 2(w) will have to be understood in an ejusdem generis manner, so that the employer -employee relationship is maintained all throughout, etc. The Apex Court categorically held that in a case where the employee concerned does not have the 20 years of qualifying service in terms of Regulation 29(1), there is no question of arising any claim under Regulation 29(5). For the sake of easy reference, Regulation 29(5) is given below (See para 14 of United Bank of India 's case (supra) [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 , p.611]: “29. (5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation”. In the very same judgment in United Bank of India 's case supra, the Apex Court has referred to the previous judgment rendered by the Apex Court in N.Venkatramani 's case supra [(2007) 10 SCC 609] and para 13 of N.Venkatramni 's case supra has been referred to in para 23 of the United Bank of India 's case supra [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ] . The Apex court has not in any manner overruled the ratio decidendi of the decision in N.Venkatramani ' case supra [ (2007) 10 SCC 609 ] while rendering the decision in United Bank of India 's case supra [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ] . The Apex Court has considered the impact of N.Venkatramani 's case supra in paras 23 and 24 of United Bank of India 's case supra, [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ] , which read as follows: “23. We may notice that this Court in Indian Bank v. N.Venkatramani held:(SCC p.612, para 13) “13. It may be true that various provisions of the Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23 etc. provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not controlled by any of the said provisions. It does not brook any restrictive interpretation. It only provides for a rule of measurement. An employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was entitled to pension provided he has completed the specified period of service. How such a period of service would be computed is a matter which is governed by the statute. It is one thing to say that a statute provides for completion of fifteen years of minimum service, but if a provision provides for measurement of the period, the same cannot be lost sight of. Provision of the regulations which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be construed liberally.” 24.In N.Venkatramani, the question arose as to how the lack in period of service of less than one year shall be construed. This Court held that Regulation 18 was not controlled by Regulations 16,17,19,23 etc. as it provided for a rule of measurement. It is however, trite that even a beneficial legislation should not be extended to such an extent whereby it would take into within its fold a situation which was not contemplated under the statute.” In the above case, there is no claim or applicability of Regulation 18 regarding reckoning of broken service. The only contention put forward by the employee in the case in United Bank of India 's case supra was that his period of 17 years and above should be added on along with the 5 years of service envisaged in Regulation 29(5) and that accordingly, he should be treated to have more than 20 years of qualifying service, etc. The only contention put forward by the employee in the case in United Bank of India 's case supra was that his period of 17 years and above should be added on along with the 5 years of service envisaged in Regulation 29(5) and that accordingly, he should be treated to have more than 20 years of qualifying service, etc. The said plea has been rejected by the Apex Court in United Bank of India 's case supra. Hence, the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in United Bank of India 's case supra [ (2009) 8 SCC 605 ] has no application in the instant case or in the cases covered by the aforecited case laws. For these reasons, we are not in a position to accede to the abovesaid submissions and pleas made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant State Bank of Travancore. In other words, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the well considered verdict of the learned Single Judge.” Therefore, this Court notices that the Division Bench of this Court had also considered the entitlement under Regulation 29(5), though it was not specifically a subject matter of consideration before this Court and has made the afore findings. 11. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the interpretation in Ext.P7 so as to deny the benefit under Regulation 29(5) was incorrect and arbitrary. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. This writ petition would, therefore, stand allowed, setting aside Ext.P7. There will be a direction to the 1 st respondent Bank to recompute the pension eligibility of the petitioner, also by applying the provisions of Regulation 29(5), referred to above. Fresh orders to be issued as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.