Dilip Kumar v. State Bank Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9292 of 2011 ====================================================== Dilip Kumar S/O Banke Bihari Singh Resident of B-140, Peoples Cooperative Colony, Post Lohiyanagar, Police Station Kankarbagh, District Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State Bank of India, through its Chairman at Mumbai.

2. The General Manager State Bank of India, Office at West of Gandhi Maidan, District Patna.

3. Deputy General Manager cum Appellate Authority, State Bank of India, Zonal Office at Bhagalpur.

4. Assistant General Manager, Region-II State Bank of India, Zonal Section, Bhagalpur.

5. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Pankur, District Pankur.

6. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Amrapara Branch, P.O. Amrapara, District Pankur.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL ORDER 6.

21.01.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

As per the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Bank of India, copy of which was served on learned counsel for the petitioner on 23.01.2012, all admissible post retiral dues of the petitioner have been paid and with regard to pension, it is the stand that under Rule 22 of the S.B.I. Employees Pension Fund Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), the same is not admissible in the case of the petitioner for the reason that being a person removed from service, he should either have completed 25 years of pensionable service irrespective of age or 20 years of

Patna High Court CWJC No.9292 of 2011 (6) dt.21-01-2015 2/2 pensionable service after attaining 50 years of age, but the petitioner's age is only 43 years and service is only 21 years, 1 month and 22 days on the date of removal. Learned counsel for the petitioner had taken time on 15.12.2014 and again on 13.01.2014 to take instructions on this point. Today, nothing has been shown to the Court in support of the claim of the petitioner for pension especially Rule 22 of the Rules. In view of the aforesaid, nothing remains in the writ application and accordingly the same stands disposed off. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar U