In a judgment delivered on 08 April 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by K.G. Seshadri, a former clerk of the State Bank of India, holding that an employee who abandons service cannot claim pensionary benefits by treating such abandonment as voluntary retirement. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria clarified that pension under the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955 is payable only upon strict compliance with the eligibility conditions prescribed under Rule 22, and that voluntary abandonment of service does not fulfil those conditions.
The appellant was appointed as a clerk in the respondent-bank on 17 August 1978 and was confirmed in service after the probation period on 17 February 1979. He remained in service until 1989, after which he left for abroad without formal permission or leave. Upon his return in 2004, he sought to re-join service, but the bank declined the request. Vide letter dated 21 July 2008, the bank declared that the appellant had voluntarily abandoned his services with effect from 12 December 1998. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court, which directed him to approach the Labour Court. The appellant then filed a claim petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court seeking computation of pensionary benefits. The Labour Court dismissed the petition holding that it had no jurisdiction since the claim involved disputed questions of fact regarding eligibility for pension. The High Court, in a subsequent writ petition, upheld the Labour Court’s view, observing that the appellant’s entitlement to pension was itself in dispute and could not be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. The Division Bench of the High Court also dismissed the writ appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that he had completed more than 20 years of service and was entitled to pension under Rule 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules, which provides for pension after completion of 20 years of pensionable service irrespective of age, at the employee’s request in writing. He further argued that the bank had erred in applying Rule 22(i)(a) instead of Rule 22(i)(c) and that the probation period should also be counted towards pensionable service.
The Supreme Court, after examining Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules, held that pensionable service is to be reckoned from the date of confirmation in service and not from the date of initial appointment. The Court observed that the appellant’s service, after excluding the probation period, came to less than 20 years (19 years, 9 months and 25 days) and that he had not attained the age of 50 years as on the date of cessation of service. The Court further held that the appellant’s case was not one of voluntary retirement but of voluntary abandonment of service, as he had remained unauthorisedly absent for a prolonged period without informing or availing leave, despite notices issued by the bank. The Court clarified that Rule 22(i)(c) applies only when an employee seeks voluntary retirement in writing after completing 20 years of pensionable service, which was not the situation in the present case.
Rejecting the appellant’s reliance on earlier decisions such as Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India v. Radhey Shyam Pandey and Rugmini Ganesh v. State Bank of India, the Court held that those cases dealt with situations where entitlement to pension was not in dispute or where the issue was limited to computation of qualifying service. In the present case, the very foundation of the claim — entitlement to pension — was seriously disputed by the bank on the ground of voluntary abandonment of service. The Court emphasised that abandonment of service cannot be equated with voluntary retirement for the purpose of claiming pensionary benefits.
In view of the above, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was not eligible for pension under either Rule 22(i)(a) or Rule 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another
Citation: 2026 INSC 333
Coram: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 