Dismissed

Anil Kumar Pandey v. Chairman Cum Managing Director State Bank Of India and Ors.

Patna HC22 May 2020CWJC/15646/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioner sought to set aside an order refusing pension. The claimant, removed from service before attaining 50 years of age, argued for pensionary benefit. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting the delay in filing and the ineligibility under pension rules requiring minimum service and age. No merit was found in the application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application set aside order dated 19-02-2003 and orders for issuance of directions regarding pensionary benefit were dismissed.

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs Chairman Cum Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15646 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Anil Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Anirudh Pandey, Resident of Village- Sahora, P.S.- Gourichak, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Chairman Cum Managing Director State Bank of India

¶7

General Manager State Bank of India Patna Bank.

¶8

Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Anandpuri, Patna.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

======================================================

¶11

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kaushlesh Chaudhary

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 22-05-2020

¶14

This matter is taken up for consideration through Video Conferencing under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kaushlesh Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent/State Bank of India.

¶16

The present writ petition has been preferred for setting aside an order, contained in letter no. PPG/PCP/527/11199 dated 19-02-2003, passed by the Assistant General Manager (PPG), State Bank of India, Patna Main Branch, Patna (Annexure – 4 to the writ petition) and also for issuance of necessary direction to the respondent authority for the pensionary benefit.

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.15646 of 2017 dt.22-05-2020 2/3

¶18

In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Godown Watchman on 14-11-1975 and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Cashier, but he was removed from the service on 26-05-2000. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for the payment of pension, but the same was refused, vide letter dated 19-02-2003 (Annexure – 4), which is under-challenge.

¶19

In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/Bank, in which, a preliminary objection has been raised on the point of maintainability of the writ petition. The Bank has raised objection that the writ petition is fit to be rejected on the ground of limitation, since the writ petition has been filed after inordinate delay i.e. more than 14 and ½ years and there is no explanation in the writ petition for the same.

¶20

So far as pensionary benefit is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled for the same, as stated by the respondent/Bank in its counter affidavit. For just decision in the matter, It would be appropriate to quote paragraph – 7 of the counter affidavit, which is as follows:-

¶21

“7. That the petitioner’s aforesaid representation was rejected by the Bank as per Rule 22(i)(a) of the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules, which is as under ‘A member shall be entitled to a pension under these rules or retiring from Bank’s

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.15646 of 2017 dt.22-05-2020 3/3

¶23

Service:- (a) After having completed twenty years pensionable service provided that he has attained the age of 50 years’ .”

¶24

In this case, petitioner has not completed the age of 50 years and on the date of removal, the age of petitioner was 48 years, 4 months only. Moreover, the rest of the admissible benefits like, Gratuity, provident fund etc. have already been paid to the petitioner by the respondents/Bank.

¶25

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the writ application and as such, it is dismissed.

¶26

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.)

¶27

anay

¶28

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	23.05.2020
Transmission Date	N/A

Anil Kumar Pandey v. Chairman Cum Managing Director State Bank Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Pandey v. Chairman Cum Managing Director State Bank Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunita Sharma Vs The Union Of India and Anr.

Manjula Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dewanti Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mohmad Altamash Vs the State of Bihar

Chhote Lal Mahto @ Chhotu Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Indal Bind Vs The State of Bihar