The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an employee of the State Bank of India (SBI) is not entitled to pensionary benefits if they fail to complete 20 years of qualifying service or reach the age of 50. A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria further clarified that “voluntary abandonment of services” cannot be treated as “voluntary retirement” for the purpose of claiming pension under the Bank’s rules.
The primary legal issue was whether the appellant, a former clerk who had been unauthorizedly absent for a long period and subsequently declared to have abandoned his service, was eligible for pension under the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant satisfied neither the service duration nor the age criteria prescribed in the rules.
Background of the Case
The appellant, K.G. Seshadri, was appointed as a Clerk in SBI and confirmed on February 17, 1979. In 1989, he left for abroad and ceased reporting for duty. Upon his return in 2004, his request to rejoin was turned down. On July 21, 2008, the Bank declared that he had voluntarily retired, though later records clarified this as a case of voluntary abandonment following unauthorized absence from January 24, 1998, to December 11, 1998.
The appellant’s claim for pension computation (totaling ₹8,11,770) was previously dismissed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, for lack of jurisdiction. This dismissal was subsequently upheld by a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, leading to the present appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant’s senior counsel argued that he had completed over 20 years of service (calculating from the date of appointment to the date of deemed retirement) and was entitled to pension under Rule 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules. The appellant further contended that the Bank’s denial of a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) was incorrect, as a scheme had been in existence since 1986.
The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) for SBI countered that the appellant had not completed the 20 years of “pensionable service” required under the rules, as service is only reckoned from the date of confirmation. Furthermore, the Bank argued that the appellant had not attained 50 years of age, making him ineligible under Rule 22(i)(a). The Bank emphasized that the appellant had “voluntarily abandoned” his services and had been working abroad during his period of absence.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the eligibility conditions under Rule 22, read with Rules 20 and 7. The Court noted that pensionable service begins only from the date of confirmation.
“Thus, if we calculate the total period of the service rendered by the appellant, after completion of probation, it would come down to less than 20 years i.e., 19 years, 09 months and 25 days. Thus, the first condition of the appellant having completed 20 years in service is not-fulfilled.”
Addressing the appellant’s attempt to equate his situation with voluntary retirement, the Court observed:
“The present case is not of voluntary retirement, rather of voluntary abandonment of the services, wherein from 24.01.1998 to 11.12.1998, the appellant, without informing and availing leave, started remaining absent for a long time.”
The Bench distinguished the present case from AGM, SBI vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey (2020), noting that while pension is a pre-existing right, it is contingent upon meeting specific eligibility criteria. Even when considering the appellant’s plea to include the probation period (as per Rugmini Ganesh vs. SBI), the Court found that the appellant had not attained the age of 50 at the relevant time, which is a mandatory requirement under Rule 22(i)(a).
Decision
The Court concluded that the appellant was ineligible under all applicable rules.
“In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be said to be eligible for pension under the Pension Fund Rules considering that he has not completed 20 years of service nor had attained the age of 50 years… Also, the appellant’s case cannot be said to fall under Rule 22(i)(c) since the appellant was never granted VRS, instead his services were declared to have been voluntary abandoned.”
The appeal was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: K.G. Seshadri vs. The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4279 of 2026 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.12462 of 2022)
- Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice N.V. Anjaria
- Date: April 08, 2026
