Petitioner challenged pension and gratuity calculations post-retirement from SBI. Court examined calculations under the Rules of 2014 and found them correct.
The petition was dismissed against the deposition of the petitioner. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 649 of 2018
Satish Kumar Dubey S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Durbey, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Ehar, District Raibareli Uttar Pradesh., District : Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank Of India Through Its Chief General Manager, Hamidiya Road, Bhopal (M.P.), District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
2. The Deputy General Manager, S.B.I., Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. The Regional Manager, State Bank Of India, Regional Office Dharampra Road, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Hrishabh Deo Shukla, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
12.06.2024
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“ 10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to fix proper pension by calculating basic pay including dearness allowance, in accordance with law and arrears of pension with interest @ 12% per annum be also directed to be paid to the petitioner.
10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the balance amount of Rs.7,82,574/- towards gratuity forthwith, with interest @ 12% from the date of entitlement to its realization.
10.3 Any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case
-2-
including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as the Part-time General Attendant under respondent No.1/Bank in the year 1998. Later on, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Messenger and he retired from services on 30.06.2017. At the time of retirement, the petitioner was drawing a basic pay scale of Rs. 14,380/- and the attached dearness allowance (DA). She would further submit that after retirement, the Department fixed his pension to the tune of Rs. 4083/- per month which is contrary to the Rules applicable to the case of the petitioner. She would also submit that the respondent authorities ought to have calculated the pension by adding Dearness Allowance and other benefits. She would further argue that there is a minor difference in calculation done by the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner and the respondent Bank. She would also submit that the amount of gratuity paid by the respondent was also not proper and thus, she would pray to allow the petition.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Bank would submit that the gratuity was calculated according to the Rules of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 2014 (for short ‘the Rules of 2014’). He would further submit that the gratuity was calculated at the rate of
3
15 days’ wages for each completed year of service or part thereof in excess of 6 months on the basis of 26 working days in a month as per the following formula :-
Wages x 15 x No. of years of service Rs.20,937.28 x 15 x 18 -------------------------------------------------- = ------------------------------ = Rs.2,17,426/26 26
He would further argue that the pension was calculated according to Rule 23 of the Rules of 2014. He would also argue that every permanent employee of the Bank would be eligible for pensionary benefits from the date he was confirmed in the services of the Bank. He would further contend that the services of the petitioner were confirmed on 22.05.2000 and he retired from services on 30.06.2017. He would also contend that the average substantive salary for the last 12 months of pensionable service is to be calculated for pension and the pension amount so calculated comes to Rs.4083/-. Mr. Patankar would refer to calculation sheet which is placed as Annexure R/1 along with the return which is as
under:-
| Calcul | ation sheet |
|---|---|
| Components | Amounts (Rupees) |
| 1. Average substantive salary for the last 12 months of pensionable service |
Rs.172,069.99/12 = Rs.14,339.17 |
| 2. Pension Admissible (a) (Avg. x pensionable service in months)/60 x 12 (rounded off to next |
Rs.14,339.17 x 205 months/60 x 12 Rs.4,083,.00 Rs.7,170.00 |
| higher rupee) (b) (i) 50% of average Salary (ii) Minimum Value (Rounded off to next higher rupee) |
Rs.7,170.00 Rs.7,170.00 |
| (c) Maximum Pension Admissible under Rule 23 of the SBI/18(IBI) Pension |
Rs.4,083.00 |
| Fund Rules (greater of b(i) & b(ii) (d) Pension Payable i.e. least of (a)&(c) |
-4-
| 3. First day of Pension | 01.07.2017 |
|---|---|
| 4. (a) Amount of Pension Commuted (b) Age admissible for Commutation (age as on next Birthday or age recommended by the Medical Officer) (c) Commutation Factor (d) Commutation Value (Rounded off to next higher rupee) |
Rs.0.00 00 Years 0.00 Rs.0.00 |
| 5. Family Pension at full rate of Normal Pension (5 years from retirement) |
Rs.4,083.00 Payable upto 30.06.2022 |
| 6. Reduced Family Pension (20% of Average Substantive Salary as |
Rs.3,422.00 Payable from 01.07.2022 |
| the case may be. Minimum = Rs.3,422.00 |
He would also state that the amount of gratuity and pension has
been given to the petitioner strictly in accordance with the Rules of 2014
and thus the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents placed on the record.
5. Rule 23 of the Rules of 2014 says 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.”
(2) The maximum pension shall not exceed one-half of the average monthly substantive salary drawn during the last twelve months pensionable service or rupees two thousand four hundred per month (pro-rata in the case of part time employees) whichever is less.
6. The petitioner has also placed a pay slip according to which the
basic salary of the petitioner was Rs.14,339.17. The average of the last 12 months' salary comes to Rs.14,339.17 and it was multiplied by
5
205 months, the total service of the petitioner divided by 60 X 12 and it comes to Rs.4,083/-. The calculation sheet as placed by the respondents along with the return appears to be correct. With regard to gratuity, the same has been calculated strictly in accordance with the permissible Rules and the amount of gratuity so assessed by the respondent has already been paid to the petitioner.
7. Taking into consideration the chart prepared by the respondent/Bank and the facts discussed above, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No costs.
Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge
Rekha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced pension and gratuity calculated differently from the bank rules.
Whether the calculation of pension and gratuity as per Rule 23 of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 2014 is correct.
Satish Kumar Dubey
State Bank Of India
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
