Dismissed¶22

SBI Retired Officers Welfare Association & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Anr.

Delhi HC20 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/5216/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC dismisses writ by SBI Retired Officers Welfare Association seeking retrospective (from 01.11.2017) extension of 'Special Pay' introduced by SBI e-circular 28.08.2024 effective 01.08.2024; speaking order 28.01.2026 upheld; no accrued right under 11th Bipartite Settlement; Article 14 arbitrariness rejected; V. Kasturi (1998) 8 SCC 30 distinguished; employer policy domain; Sanjeev Narula J; 20.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

The legal question is whether the Petitioners have shown an enforceable right in officers to receive Special Pay from 1 November 2017; on the material placed before the Court, the answer is in the negative. ¶12

SBI Retired Officers Welfare Association & Ors. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether officers of the State Bank of India who retired between 1 November 2017 and 31 July 2024 are entitled to the 'Special Pay' introduced by the Bank's e-circular dated 28 August 2024 with effect from 1 August 2024 — i.e., retrospective extension of the benefit from 1 November 2017, the date the 11th Bipartite Settlement for workmen staff took effect. +2 more

¶2

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

No provision in the 11th Bipartite Settlement, or in any regulation applicable to officers, created a corresponding Special Pay for officers from 1 November 2017; the petition therefore does not proceed on an accrued service entitlement remaining unpaid, but on a later measure introduced by the Bank in August 2024.

¶13

Key takeaways

The e-circular dated 28 August 2024 does not implement an existing officer-side right from 1 November 2017; it records a fresh decision of the Executive Committee of the Central Board (13 August 2024), fixes the stages and amount, makes the component rank for DA, HRA and superannuation benefits, and applies it prospectively with effect from 1 August 2024 — creating a fresh monetary component in service conditions.ratio¶14
Read as a whole, the speaking order treats Special Pay as a special compensatory provision at Bank level, unconnected with the Bipartite Settlement or Joint Note and applicable only to officers in service on the date of implementation; the Bank's acknowledgment that the measure addressed an existing imbalance does not, by itself, convert it into a retrospective entitlement absent a pre-existing enforceable right.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Sanjeev Narula, J), W.P.(C) 5216/2026 & CM APPL. 25498/2026, decided 20.04.2026 — Dismissed. SBI Retired Officers Welfare Association and two retired SBI officers sought retrospective extension from 1 November 2017 of the 'Special Pay' introduced by SBI e-circular dated 28 August 2024 (effective 1 August 2024) for all permanent officers, following the narrowing of the award-staff/officer differential after the 11th Bipartite Settlement (effective 1 November 2017), and challenged the Bank's speaking order dated 28 January 2026 (passed pursuant to the Court's order of 5 December 2025 in W.P.(C) 8331/2025) rejecting the claim. Held: (i) no provision of the 11th Bipartite Settlement or any officer regulation created Special Pay from 1 November 2017, so no accrued enforceable right exists; (ii) the e-circular records a fresh Executive Committee of Central Board decision of 13 August 2024 creating a new monetary component, prospective from 1 August 2024, ranking for DA, HRA and superannuation benefits; (iii) the Bank's acknowledgment of the pre-existing imbalance does not convert the measure into a retrospective entitlement; (iv) the Article 14 challenge fails — every prospective benefit must operate from some date, the Court will not substitute a more 'logical' date, and the in-service/pre-retirement line is not inherently unconstitutional; (v) V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay & Anr., (1998) 8 SCC 30, relied on by the Petitioners, was distinguished — it concerns liberalisation of an existing pensionary benefit, whereas no pension regulation was amended here; (vi) pay-structure questions lie in the employer's policy domain absent contravention of statute or binding settlement, mala fide, or manifest arbitrariness. Writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed.

¶1

$~87

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5216/2026 & CM APPL. 25498/2026

¶4

SBI RETIRED OFFICERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.

¶5

.....Petitioners Through: Mr. Avinash K. Sharma, Mr. R. Abhishek, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, SC for SBI with Mr. Akshit Kapur, AOR and Ms. Riya Sood, Advocate for R-1. Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, CGSC with Mr. Rahul Mourya, Advocate for R-2.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 20.04.2026

¶11

The present writ petition is directed against the speaking order dated 28^th January, 2026 passed by the State Bank of India pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 5^th December, 2025 in W.P.(C) 8331/2025, and also against SBI e-circular dated 28^th August, 2024 to the extent it introduces “Special Pay” for permanent officers with effect from 1^st August, 2024. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is an association of retired officers of the State Bank of India. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are retired officers and members of that association. Their grievance is that, after the 11^th Bipartite Settlement for workmen staff took effect from 1^st November, 2017, the differential in pay

¶12

¶13

W.P.(C) 5216/2026 Page 1 of 8

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 12:42:36

¶16

and pensionary benefits between award staff and officers narrowed sharply. The Bank eventually accepted that anomaly and introduced “Special Pay” for officers by the e-circular dated 28^th August, 2024. The complaint is that, once that anomaly stood acknowledged, there was no lawful basis to make the benefit available only from 1^st August, 2024 and to deny it to officers who had retired between 1^st November, 2017 and 31^st July, 2024.

¶17

The earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioners was disposed of by this Court on 5^th December, 2025 with a direction to the respondent Bank to consider the representation dated 25^th January, 2025 and pass a speaking order. The Court did not enter upon the merits at that stage. Pursuant thereto, the Bank has passed the speaking order dated 28^th January, 2026, rejecting the request for retrospective extension of “Special Pay”. 4. Mr. Avinash K. Sharma, counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the controversy has its roots in the service changes which followed the 11^th Bipartite Settlement for workmen staff, made effective from 1^st November, 2017. The revision introduced under that framework materially narrowed the differential between award staff and officers in salary and retiral consequences. The disparity became particularly acute at the lower officer levels and, in some situations, led to an inversion which the Bank itself later found necessary to address.

¶18

Mr. Sharma further submits that the issue of restoring a meaningful differential between clerical staff and officers was not raised for the first time in this litigation, but had been repeatedly taken up by the officers’ side with the Bank. The grievance is that the Bank kept the issue under consideration over a period of time, yet eventually chose to introduce “Special Pay” for officers only from 1^st August, 2024, although the anomaly

¶19

W.P.(C) 5216/2026 Page 2 of 8

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 12:42:36

¶22

which it sought to address had arisen much earlier, namely on 1^st November, 2017.

¶23

Mr. Sharma points to the contents of the e-circular dated 28^th August, 2024. Under that circular, “Special Pay” has been granted to all permanent officers of the Bank irrespective of grade or scale, at two service-linked stages, and the circular expressly states that the component will rank for Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and superannuation benefits including pension/NPS and gratuity. He submits that once the Bank itself has chosen to reckon this component for pensionary consequences, the exclusion of officers who retired after 1^st November, 2017 but before 1^st August, 2024 becomes manifestly unfair and constitutionally suspect.

¶24

The Petitioners then rely heavily on the speaking order dated 28^th January, 2026. The order states that the provision of “Special Pay” has been introduced to protect the erosion of the differential gap in salary and pensionary benefits vis-à-vis award staff. According to the Petitioners, this is an acknowledgment by the Bank itself that the measure was introduced to cure a pre-existing distortion. On that basis, Mr. Sharma submits that the Bank cannot acknowledge the anomaly and yet fix a later date unrelated to its origin.

¶25

Building on that foundation, Mr. Sharma contends that the selection of 1^st August, 2024 as the effective date is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He submits that it creates two classes out of the same body of officers: first, those who were in service on 1^st November, 2017 but retired before 1^st August, 2024, and second, those who continued in service until 1^st August, 2024 or retired thereafter. Both groups formed part of the same officer cadre when the disparity arose, and there is no intelligible basis

¶26

W.P.(C) 5216/2026 Page 3 of 8

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 12:42:36

¶29

to deny one set the benefit of the corrective step while extending it to the other.

¶30

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay & Anr .¹ , it is also submitted that pensioners forming part of the same class cannot be divided by an arbitrary line once a beneficial change bearing on pension is brought into force. The present case falls within that principle because the Bank has itself made “Special Pay” reckonable for pensionary and other superannuation benefits.

¶31

Mr. Kapoor for the Bank, on the other hand, argues that the “Special Pay” introduced with effect from 1^st August, 2024 is a special compensatory provision settled at Bank level under the statutory and regulatory powers of the Bank. According to the Bank, it is not traceable to the Bipartite Settlement or the Joint Note, is not part of any retrospective salary revision, and applies only to officers who were in service on the date of its implementation. The Bank has therefore taken the position that officers who had retired prior to 1^st August, 2024 had no legal or equitable right to claim the benefit.

¶32

Having heard counsel and considered the documents placed on record, this Court is not persuaded that the petition discloses a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is necessary to separate two things which the Petitioners seek to run together. The first is the background in which the Bank appears to have acted. The second is the legal source of the benefit actually created. The Petitioners may well be right in saying that the workmen-side revisions operating from 1^st November, 2017

¶33

W.P.(C) 5216/2026 Page 4 of 8

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 12:42:36

¶36

altered the relative position between award staff and officers and that the Bank later viewed that situation as requiring correction. The speaking order itself indicates as much. That, however, only explains the background. It does not, without more, answer the legal question before the Court.

¶37

The legal question is whether the Petitioners have shown an enforceable right in officers to receive this Special Pay from 1^st November, 2017. On the material placed before the Court, the answer must be in the negative.

¶38

The 11^th Bipartite framework concerns workmen staff. It revises the position of clerical and subordinate staff and gives certain components effect from 1^st November, 2017. It also contemplates consequential adjustments and arrears within that framework. But the Petitioners have not been able to point to any provision in that settlement, or in any regulation applicable to officers, by which a corresponding Special Pay stood created for officers from that date. The petition therefore does not proceed on an accrued service entitlement which remained unpaid. It proceeds on a later measure introduced by the Bank in August 2024.

¶39

The e-circular dated 28^th August, 2024 does not present itself as an implementation of an existing officer-side right from 1^st November, 2017. It records a decision of the Executive Committee of the Central Board taken on 13^th August, 2024 to introduce a “Special Pay” for all permanent officers irrespective of grade or scale. The circular fixes the stages, states the amount, provides that the component will rank for DA, HRA and superannuation benefits, and then makes it applicable with effect from 1^st August, 2024. On a plain reading, the circular creates a fresh monetary

¶40

1 (1998) 8 SCC 30

¶41

W.P.(C) 5216/2026 Page 5 of 8

¶42

This is a digitally signed order.

¶43

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 12:42:36

¶44

component in service conditions with prospective effect.

¶45

The Petitioners place considerable emphasis on the Bank’s acknowledgment that the measure was introduced to protect the erosion of the differential gap in salary and pensionary benefits vis-à-vis award staff. While that statement cannot be ignored, it also cannot be read in isolation. The speaking order goes on to say, with equal clarity, that the Special Pay was introduced as a special compensatory provision at Bank level, unconnected with the Bipartite or Joint Note, and applicable only to officers in service as on the date of implementation. Read as a whole, the speaking order does not treat the benefit as a deferred release of dues which had already accrued from 1^st November, 2017. The fact that a measure is introduced to address an existing imbalance does not, by itself, convert it into a retrospective entitlement, absent a pre-existing enforceable right in that regard.

¶46

The Article 14 challenge also loses much of its force. Every prospective revision, allowance or service benefit necessarily has a date from which it begins to operate. A Court does not replace that date merely because another date appears more logical to the claimants. Interference is warranted where the chosen date is wholly capricious, or where it defeats an existing legal right, or where the measure in question is in truth a revision of an already accrued entitlement. That is not what is shown here.

¶47

The Petitioners say that the line drawn at 1^st August, 2024 splits a homogeneous class of officers. However, the line here is between officers who were in service when the new compensatory component came into existence and those who had already retired before that date. In the context of a benefit created prospectively as part of service conditions, that

¶48

W.P.(C) 5216/2026 Page 6 of 8

¶49

This is a digitally signed order.

¶50

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 12:42:36

¶51

distinction cannot be said to be inherently unconstitutional.

¶52

The reliance on V. Kasturi does not assist the Petitioners in the present setting. The principle in that decision applies where an existing pensionary benefit available to a class of pensioners is subsequently liberalised, in which case such benefit cannot be confined only to those retiring after a particular date. The present case is materially different. Here, there is no amendment to the pension regulations, nor any general revision of the pension formula for all existing pensioners. What has been introduced is a fresh service-side component for officers in service from a specified date, one consequence of which is that it will rank for superannuation benefits for those who retire thereafter. This cannot be equated with an enhancement of an existing pensionary entitlement so as to extend it to those who had retired before the component came into existence.

¶53

The Petitioners also relied on the historical rationale that officer emoluments should maintain an appropriate differential over the clerical cadre. That may explain why the Bank considered it necessary, in 2024, to take corrective action. But it still does not establish that officers who had retired earlier acquired a vested right to demand the retrospective creation of a component which was neither payable nor in existence during their tenure of service.

¶54

The Court is also mindful that questions of pay structure, allowances, incentives and the date from which such measures should operate generally lie within the employer’s policy domain, particularly where the employer is acting within a statutory and regulatory framework. Judicial intervention is warranted where a measure is contrary to statute, a binding settlement, mala fide , or manifestly arbitrary. The present case does not cross that threshold.

¶55

W.P.(C) 5216/2026 Page 7 of 8

¶56

This is a digitally signed order.

¶57

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 12:42:36

¶58

The Petitioners have shown a grievance. They have not shown a legal right enforceable in writ jurisdiction.

¶59

For these reasons, this Court finds no ground to interfere either with SBI e-circular dated 28^th August, 2024 or with the speaking order dated 28^th January, 2026.

¶60

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶61

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶62

APRIL 20, 2026/ab

¶63

W.P.(C) 5216/2026 Page 8 of 8

¶64

This is a digitally signed order.

¶65

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 12:42:36

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether officers of the State Bank of India who retired between 1 November 2017 and 31 July 2024 are entitled to the 'Special Pay' introduced by the Bank's e-circular dated 28 August 2024 with effect from 1 August 2024 — i.e., retrospective extension of the benefit from 1 November 2017, the date the 11th Bipartite Settlement for workmen staff took effect.¶2
The court held
The legal question is whether the Petitioners have shown an enforceable right in officers to receive Special Pay from 1 November 2017; on the material placed before the Court, the answer is in the negative.ratio¶12
2.
Whether the selection of 1 August 2024 as the effective date for 'Special Pay' is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, by dividing officers who formed part of the same cadre when the disparity arose into two classes — those who retired before 1 August 2024 and those in service on or after that date.¶8
The court held
The Article 14 challenge largely loses its force: every prospective revision, allowance or service benefit necessarily has a date from which it begins to operate, and a Court does not replace that date merely because another date appears more logical to the claimants.ratio¶16
3.
Whether, on the principle invoked from V. Kasturi v. Managing Director, State Bank of India, Bombay & Anr., (1998) 8 SCC 30, pensioners forming part of the same class cannot be divided by an arbitrary line once a beneficial change bearing on pension is brought into force, so as to extend 'Special Pay' to pre-1 August 2024 retirees.¶9
The court held
V. Kasturi does not assist the Petitioners: its principle applies where an existing pensionary benefit available to a class of pensioners is subsequently liberalised. Here there is no amendment to the pension regulations nor any general revision of the pension formula; a fresh service-side component, one consequence of which is that it ranks for superannuation benefits for those retiring thereafter, cannot be equated with an enhancement of an existing pensionary entitlement extended to earlier retirees.ratio¶18

SBI Retired Officers Welfare Association & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SBI Retired Officers Welfare Association & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Malik Seasoning and Spices Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax

M/S Kanika Exports Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Nisschal Jaain Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anil Bhalla Vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Solicitors India Law Offices Vs Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council & Anr.

Sunil Kumar Gandhi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

New Delhi Municipal Council Vs Harish Pal Singh & Ors.

Anju Kapoor Vs Directorate of Education & Anr.

Bikash Kumar Mahto and Ors. Vs Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd.

Yashwant Yadav Vs National Education Society for Tribal Students & Ors.

Devender Singh Vs Union of India and Anr.

Neeraj Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Krishan Vs Indian Bank & Anr.

Rajkiran Yadav Vs State Bank of India through Its Chief General Manager and Anr.