High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 07 P&H CK 0219

Inderjeet Malhotra vs State Bank of Patiala

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 July 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabina, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CWP No. 17055 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 457 words

Sabina, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the temporary service rendered by him with the bank from 16.1.1976 to 10.8.1981 for the purposes of retiral benefits.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the temporary service rendered by the petitioner before he was appointed on permanent basis with the bank was liable to be taken in consideration for pensionary benefits. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had earned due increments while he served the respondent bank on temporary basis.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that in view of Regulation 15 of Chapter IV of Regulations 1995, the service rendered by the petitioner for pensionary benefits was liable to commence from the date he was appointed on permanent basis. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Gulel Ram and Another Vs. State Bank of India and Others, wherein, it was held as under:-

As noticed above, there is clear and categorical stipulation in Rule 7(a) of the Rules that every permanent employee in the service of the SBI who is entitled to pension benefits under the terms and conditions of his service shall become a member of the Fund from the date from which he is confirmed in the service of the Bank. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that their services prior to the dates of their respective confirmation shall be counted for the purpose of pensionable service.

4.

Admittedly, petitioner had worked on temporary basis from 16.1.1976 to 10.8.1981. Petitioner was appointed with respondent-bank on permanent basis w.e.f. 11.8.1981. Petitioner was granted increments during the period of his temporary service. However, the period of temporary service rendered by the petitioner has not been rightly considered by the respondent bank for pensionary benefits.

5.

Regulation 15 of Chapter IV of Regulations 1995 reads as under:-

15 Commencement of qualifying service:-

Subject to the provisions contained in these regulations, qualifying service of an employee shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed on a permanent basis.

6.

Thus, as per the above regulation, qualifying service of an employee shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post on permanent basis. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on permanent basis w.e.f. 11.8.1981. In view of the specific regulation of the bank, the service of the petitioner rendered on temporary basis cannot be counted for pensionary benefits. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the decision in Gulel Ram''s case (supra). Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

7.

Dismissed.