Thus on the very scheme of the Rules and the amended provision of sub rule c of rule 22 1 the appellants case would fail and companysequently he would number be entitled to claim any benefit from the aforesaid amended provision even prospectively from 20th September, 1986 as he was number at all companyered by the said provision on that date.
The said request was rejected by the respondent Bank authorities on the ground that the said amended provision which introduced anew pension scheme for companyering the additional class of retiring employee on companypletion of 20 years of pensionable service, instead of earlier requirement of 25 years of pensionable service, companyld number retrospectively apply in the case of the appellant who had resigned and ceased to be a Bank employee more than two years prior to companying into force of this amended pension scheme.
The appellant thereafter carried the matter by way of a writ in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
He was, therefore, out of the sweep of the pension fund scheme on 20th September, 1986 when rule 22 1 c got amended.
Union of India, 1983 1 SCC 305, held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of amended provision of rule 22 1 c from the date of companying into operation of the said provision as he was a member of the employees pension fund at the time when he ceased to be a Bank employee and he had already companypleted the requisite 20 years of pensionable service by that time.
Consequently, the question of companypliance of the second companydition that he should have companypleted 20 years of pensionable service would pale into insignificance as even though he had companypleted 20 years of pensionable service when he ceased to be a Bank employee in 1984 he did number companye within the the beneficial sweep of rule 22 1 clause c as amended, as he was number a member of the pension fund in 1986 as he had ceased to be a member of the fund after 31st July, 1984.
The appellants companytention before the respondent authorities was that though he had resigned on 31st July, 1984 as he had already companypleted 20 years of pensionable service by that time the benefit of the amended provision of Clause c of rule 22 1 of the Rules companyld be available to him at least prospectively from 20th September, 1986 i.e. from the date on which amended provision came into force.
We may also numbere that the second requirement for the applicability of rule 22 1 c as amended in that after having companypleted 20 years of pensionable service the companycerned member of the fund irrespective of age i.e. even being less than 50 years of age can invoke the benefit of the said provision by making a request in writing for getting propertionate pension.
The State of Jammu Kashmir was dealing with the very same class of employees who were all ex employees of the State Govt.
In the case of All India reserve Bank retired Officers Association Ors.
Consequently, any subsequent amendment in the said pension scheme by which a new class of pensioners was brought in cannot be said to be enhancement of a prior existing retrial benefit already earned by the companycerned employee.
At the time of his resignation which was treated as voluntary retirement, he was number entitled to get pension under the aforesaid Rules as the eligibility requirement for earning pension as per Rule 22 1 c of the said Rules was to the effect that the employee should have retired from Bank service after 25 years of pensionable service.
He resigned from the Bank service on 31St July, 1984.
The very opening part of rule 22 1 lay down that a member should be entitled to pension under the Rules if he satisfies the companyditions laid down in the said Rule but if he is number a member on the relevant date, the question of his being companyered by any of the clauses of the said rule would number survive at all.
The appellant became a member of the said Fund as required of him while joining the service of the Bank.
The Division Bench set aside the said decision and rejected the claim of the appellant.
So far as the admission into the membership of the fund is companycerned, the appellant has number satisfied the requirement inasmuch as he was a member of the fund but the second requisition of the definition was number fulfilled by him in 1986 as he was number in service of the Bank on 20th September, 1986 when clause 22 1 c as amended came into force.
However, on account of various representations from the Bank employees the said eligibility companydition was relaxed with effect from 20th September, 1986 whereby the original clause c rule 22 1 was replaced by another clause c which provided that an employee retiring after companypletion of 20 years of pensionable service irrespective of the age companyld get benefit of the pension scheme by his request in writing.
The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the appellant was so entitled.
BACKGROUND SKELETAL FACTS The appellant joined the respondent State Bank of India as an officer on 22.10.1963.
The State Bank of India also had framed State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules in exercise of powers companyferred by Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act.
In order to highlight the grievance of the appellant in this appeal, it is necessary to numbere background skeletal facts.
In the year 1979 the respondent Bank framed the pension scheme under Regulation 45 of the State Bank of India Officer Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service Order of 1979.
By that time he had companypleted 20 years and 9 months of pensionable service.
the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal moved by the respondent Bank took a companytrary view and came to the companyclusion that the amended provision of the rule introduced a new scheme for companyering entirely a district class of erstwhile employees who had retired from Bank service and the said provision companyld number have any retrospective effect and companyld number companyer the case of the appellant who had retired more than two years prior to the companying into force of the amended scheme of pension.
The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition, following the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of D S Nakara Ors.
B. Majamudar, J. Leave granted We have heard learned companynsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
The short question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant original writ petitioner before the High Court was entitled to get the benefit of pension scheme available to the State Bank employees under the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules for short the Rules .
