K.G. SESHADRIversusTHE TRUSTEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

                 [2026] 4 S.C.R. 433 : 2026 INSC 333

                            K.G. Seshadri
                                  v.
           The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another
                       (Civil Appeal No. 4279 of 2026)
                                 08 April 2026
           [Prashant Kumar Mishra* and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the appellant is entitled for pensionary benefits keeping
       in view the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules,
       1955.

                                   Headnotes†
       State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955 –
       rr.22(i)(c), 22(i)(a), 20, 7 – Appellant primarily placed reliance
       upon r.22(i)(c) to claim entitlement to pensionary benefits,
       whereas the respondent(s) contended by placing reliance
       on r.22(i)(a), that the appellant does not fulfil the conditions
       prescribed therein and is, therefore, not entitled to pension –
       Whether the appellant is entitled for pensionary benefits under
       the Pension Fund Rules:
       Held: No – Appellant is not 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, hence, making
       him ineligible u/r.22(i)(a) – Appellant’s case cannot be said to fall
       u/r.22(i)(c) either since he was never granted VRS, instead his
       services were declared to have been voluntary abandoned –
       Appellant’s case does not fall in either of the aforesaid Rules –
       Appeal dismissed – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [Para 32]

                                Case Law Cited
       Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. v.
       Radhey Shyam Pandey [2020] 4 SCR 814 : (2020) 6 SCC
       438 – distinguished.
       Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Anr. [1994]
       Supp. 4 SCR 617 : (1995) 1 SCC 235; Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju v.

* Author
434                                                                      [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


       Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam (A.P) and
       Ors. [1996] Supp. 8 SCR 727 : (1997) 1 SCC 256 – referred to.
       Rugmini Ganesh w/o Ganesh Raman Iyer vs. State Bank of India
       Rep. By its Chairperson, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3884 – referred
       to.

                                       List of Acts
       State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955;
       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

                                   List of Keywords
       Rule 22(i)(c), State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules,
       1955; Rule 22(i)(a), State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund
       Rules, 1955; Not eligible for pension under the Pension Fund
       Rules; 20 years of service not completed; Age of 50 years not
       attained; Case not of voluntary retirement; Voluntary abandonment
       of services; VRS not granted; Services were voluntarily abandoned;
       Voluntarily abandoned services; Total period of service rendered;
       Rule 20, State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules,
       1955; Rule 7, State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules,
       1955; Entitlement to pension disputed; Pension Fund Rules; Not
       entitled for pensionary benefits.

                                  Case Arising From
       C I V I L A P P E L L AT E J U R I S D I C T I O N : C i v i l A p p e a l N o .
       4279 of 2026
       From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2022 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in WA No. 1065 of 2022.

                              Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       Ms. N S Nappinai, Sr. Adv., V. Balaji, B. Dhananjay, Atul Sharma,
       Vinod K. Nair, R. Mohan, C. Kannan, Nizamuddin, Rakesh K.
       Sharma.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       K.M. Natraj, A.S.G., Sanjay Kapur, Surya Prakash, Ms. Santha
       Smruthi, Anuraj Mishra, Ms. Mansi Kapur.
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                          435

     K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another


                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

       Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     This Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order
       dated 27.04.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
       in W.A No.1065 of 2022, whereby the Division Bench of the High
       Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the
       order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court.

       FACTUAL MATRIX
3.     The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the respondent-Bank and
       the same was confirmed after the probation period of six months
       i.e., from 17.02.1979 till 12.12.1998. The appellant ceased to be
       in the job and left for abroad in the year 1989. After returning in
       the year 2004, he gave a letter to re-join the service. However, the
       respondent-Bank turned down the said request and, vide letter dated
       21.07.2008, the respondent-Bank declared that the appellant has
       been voluntarily retired.
4.     Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter dated 21.07.2008, the appellant filed
       a writ petition being W.P. No.19002 of 2008 before the High Court of
       Judicature at Madras. On 21.04.2009, the High Court orally directed
       the appellant to withdraw the case and approach the Labour Court.
5.     Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the appellant approached
       the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court1,
       Chennai, by filing a claim petition being CP No.5 of 2010 under
       Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472 and prayed
       the Labour Court to compute the appellant’s pension benefits @
       Rs.8,11,770/- along with interest. The Labour Court vide order dated
       24.09.2010 dismissed the claim petition by observing that it had no
       jurisdiction and competence to decide the case, since the present
       case was not relating to any pre-existing right under pension rules,


1    For short, “Labour Court”
2    For short, “the ID Act”
436                                                            [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                                  Supreme Court Reports


       and, hence, it could not adjudicate the issue raised therein as per
       ID Act or under the SBI Pension Rules.
6.     The appellant once again approached the High Court by way of a
       writ petition being W.P No.25597 of 2010. The learned Single Judge
       vide order dated 05.11.2019 concluded that the appellant could
       not establish any pre-existing right with reference to the eligibility
       conditions prescribed under the pension scheme and confirmed the
       findings of the Labour Court inter alia holding that since the eligibility
       and other terms and conditions for grant of pension are all disputed
       facts, the claim petition filed by the appellant could not have been
       entertained by the Labour Court.
7.     Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 05.11.2019 of the learned
       Single Judge, the appellant filed W.A. No.1065 of 2022 before
       the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench vide its
       impugned judgment and order dated 27.04.2022 dismissed the writ
       appeal and upheld the order of the learned Single Judge taking
       into consideration the limited jurisdiction of the Labour Court under
       Section 33C(2) of the ID Act and that the claim of pensionary benefits
       was disputed by the respondent(s) by a reasoned order and the
       challenge to it by the writ petition was not pressed by the appellant
       and was rather withdrawn.

       SUBMISSIONS
8.     Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
       that appellant has completed 20 years and 3 months and 25 days
       of service from date of appointment/date of confirmation and, hence,
       he was entitled to pension as per the Pension Fund Rules, more
       specifically under Rule 22(i)(c) of the State Bank of India Employees’
       Pension Fund Rules, 19553.
9.     Additionally, it was argued that the respondent-Bank denied the
       legitimate pension by deliberate misinterpretation of Pension Fund
       Rules by not applying Rule 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules,
       which states completion of 20 years’ service, irrespective of age, the
       respondent-Bank is said to have approbated and reprobated in their
       counter affidavit that the appellant has been declared under Voluntary



3    For short, “Pension Fund Rules”
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                        437

    K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another


     Cessation, but deny legitimate pension, by erroneously applying the
     incorrect Rule 22(i)(a), instead of 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules.
10. It was submitted that the respondent-Bank, even though a premier
    bank of Government of India, failed to notice that a normal Voluntary
    Retirement Scheme4 was introduced in the Bank on 20.09.1986,
    after obtaining approval from Government of India, Reserve Bank of
    India and Board of Directors of the Bank. The VRS was open to any
    employee at all point in time. So, the statement of the respondent-
    Bank that there was no VRS in existence when the appellant applied
    for the same is totally false and mischievous.
11. The appellant has relied on the decisions in Assistant General
    Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Radhey Shyam Pandey5
    and Rugmini Ganesh w/o Ganesh Raman Iyer vs. State Bank of
    India Rep. By its Chairperson6 to bolster his submissions.
12. Per contra, learned ASG appearing for the respondent-Bank
    would argue that the appellant is not eligible for pension as per
    the applicable Pension Fund Rules since he has not completed
    20 years of qualifying service and neither he has completed 50
    years of age. Thus, making him non-entitled for pension under Rule
    22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund Rules.
13. Additionally, the learned ASG argued that the claim petition filed by
    the appellant under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act was not maintainable
    since such a petition can only be entertained by the Labour Court
    when there is a pre-existing right.
14. The respondent-Bank also denies the contention of the appellant
    regarding obtaining VRS, since there was no VRS in operation
    during that relevant time. Instead, it is argued that the appellant from
    24.01.1998 to 11.12.1998 without informing and without availing leave
    started remaining unauthorizedly absent for a long period. During this
    period, the respondent-Bank, following the provisions of the Bipartite
    Settlement, issued notices dated 01.06.1998 and 12.11.1998 calling
    upon the appellant to report for work and explain his unauthorized
    absence. As the appellant failed to report for duty, he was declared


4   For short, “VRS”
5   2020 (6) SCC 438
6   2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3884
438                                                            [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       to have voluntarily abandoned his services from 12.12.1998. During
       this time, it is argued on behalf of the respondent(s) that the appellant
       had been in employment abroad and was residing there. Thus, this
       was not a case of voluntary retirement, but of voluntary abandonment
       of services on part of the appellant.
15. To bolster the submissions, the respondent-Bank has relied on the
    decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ganesh Razak &
    Anr.7 and Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju vs. Branch Manager, State
    Bank of India, Visakhapatnam (A.P) and Ors.8.
16. The rival submissions now fall for our consideration.

       ANALYSIS
17. At the outset, we make it clear that though the Labour Court
    and the High Court have dismissed the case of the appellant on
    the technical ground of non- maintainability of the petition under
    Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, primarily since the proceedings
    under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act are in the nature of execution
    proceedings and, since in the present case, the issue of the grant
    of the pension to the appellant cannot be held to be a pre-existing
    right, as the same was disputed by the respondent-Bank, both, the
    Labour Court and High Court, decided to dismiss the case of the
    appellant at the threshold. However, we have decided to proceed
    with the case on its merits.
18. The primary question that arises for our adjudication is that whether
    the appellant is entitled for pensionary benefits keeping in view the
    Pension Fund Rules.
19. Employee’s pension rights are crystallized under Rule 22 of the
    Pension Fund Rules. The said rule reads as under:
            “22. Minimum service for pension- (i) A member shall
            be entitled to a pension under these rules on retiring from
            the Bank’s service-
            a) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable
            service provided that he has attained the age of


7   (1995) 1 SCC 235
8   (1997) 1 SCC 256
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                          439

   K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another


           fifty years or if he is in the service of the Bank on or
           after the 1.11.1993, after having completed ten years
           pensionable service provided that he has attained the
           age of fifty eight years or if he is in the service of the
           Bank on or after 22.05.1998, after having completed ten
           years pensionable service provided that he has attained
           the age of sixty years;
           (b) After having completed twenty years’ pensionable
           service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained,
           if he shall satisfy the authority competent to sanction his
           retirement by approved medical certificate or otherwise
           that he is incapacitated for further active service;
           (c) after having completed twenty years pensionable
           service, irrespective of the age he shall have attained at
           his request in writing.
           (d) after twenty five years’ pensionable service.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

20. The reckoning of pensionable service has to be determined in
    accordance with Rule 20 read with Rule 7 of the Pension Fund
    Rules which read as follows:
           “20. Save as provided in rule 21, with effect from 1.11.93,
           service rendered by an employee/member from the
           date of his admission to the fund upto the date of
           retirement in terms of rule 22 infra from the Bank’s service
           shall be reckoned as service for pension.
           Rule 7 of the Rules
           7. Save as provided in rule 8, every permanent employee
           (including a permanent part-time employee who is required
           by the Bank to work for more than six hours a week) in the
           service of the Bank, who is entitled to pension benefits
           under the terms and conditions of his service shall become
           a member of the Fund from-
                (a) the date from which he is confirmed in the
                service of the Bank, or
440                                                         [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                (b) the date from which he may be required to become
                a member of the Fund under the terms and conditions
                of his service.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

21. The appellant has primarily placed reliance upon Rule 22(i)(c) of
    the Pension Fund Rules to claim entitlement to pensionary benefits,
    whereas the respondent(s) has contended, by placing reliance on Rule
    22(i)(a), that the appellant does not fulfil the conditions prescribed
    therein and is, therefore, not entitled to pension. In view of the
    rival submissions, it becomes necessary for this Court to examine
    the scope and applicability of Rule 22(i)(c) and Rule 22(i)(a) of the
    Pension Fund Rules.

       ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR PENSION UNDER RULE 22(i)(c)
       OF THE PENSION FUND RULES
22. Primarily in order for the appellant to be eligible for the pension under
    Rule 22(i)(c) following two conditions are required to be satisfied:
    The employee should have completed twenty years of pensionable
    service, irrespective of the age, he shall have attained at his request
    in writing.
23. It is the case of the appellant that he completed 20 years, 3 months
    and 25 days, as on 12.12.1998, i.e. from the date of appointment
    being 17.08.1978, to the date of deemed voluntary retirement being
    12.12.1998. However, the record of the case clearly shows that the
    appointment of the appellant was confirmed on 17.02.1979 and
    he was declared to have voluntarily abandoned his services from
    12.12.1998.
24. Additionally, a reading of Rule 20 along with Rule 7 of the Pension
    Fund Rules would make it clear that service for the purpose of
    pension is to be reckoned from the date of the employee’s admission
    to the fund wherein the employee shall become the member of the
    fund from the date on which he was confirmed in the service of the
    Bank. 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.
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                        441

   K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another


     VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OR VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT
     OF SERVICES?
25. The second condition that needs to be fulfilled is that the appellant
    must have obtained voluntary retirement from services of the
    respondent-Bank. However, looking at the record of the case, we have
    noticed that 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 after which the respondent-
    Bank issued notices dated 01.06.1998 and 12.11.1998 calling upon
    the appellant to explain his absence.
26. After receiving a non-satisfactory reply, services of the appellant were
    declared to have been voluntarily abandoned. Hence, the reliance
    placed by the appellant on Rule 22(i)(c) of the Pension Fund Rules
    is completely misplaced.
27. The appellant has relied on Radhey Shyam Pandey (supra) to
    contend that since pension is a pre-existing right under the Pension
    Fund Rules, voluntary cessation of service should be treated at
    par with voluntary retirement. This submission, however, in our
    view, seems to be completely misplaced as in Radhey Shyam
    Pandey (supra), this Court was concerned with employees who
    had undisputedly retired under a recognized Voluntary Retirement
    Scheme, and the controversy was limited to the interpretation of
    pension rules and the extent of qualifying service. The entitlement to
    pension itself was not in dispute, and, therefore, the Court proceeded
    to interpret the scheme in favour of granting benefits.
28. In contrast, in the present case, the very foundation of the appellant’s
    claim, namely, his entitlement to pension, is seriously disputed by the
    respondent-Bank, particularly with respect to the fact that his case
    is not of voluntary retirement, rather of voluntary abandonment of
    service on part of the appellant.

     ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS FOR PENSION UNDER RULE 22(i)(a)
     OF THE PENSION FUND RULES
29. Since the respondent-Bank has submitted that the appropriate rule
    under which the appellant’s case falls is Rule 22(i)(a) and not Rule
    22(i)(c), we shall now examine whether the appellant is entitled to
    pension under Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund Rules.
442                                                         [2026] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


30. The two conditions that are required to be fulfilled are that the
    appellant must have completed twenty years of pensionable service
    provided that he attained the age of fifty years during the relevant
    time. Since we have already held that the total service years of
    the appellant is less than 20 years, the first condition remains
    unfulfilled. That apart, it is an admitted position on record that the
    appellant had not attained the age of 50 years as on the date of
    cessation of service. Therefore, the mandatory condition relating to
    attainment of the prescribed age under Rule 22(i)(a) also remains
    unfulfilled. In view of the non-satisfaction of both the essential
    conditions, namely, completion of 20 years of qualifying service
    and attainment of 50 years of age, the appellant is clearly not
    entitled to claim pension under Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund
    Rules.
31. The appellant has relied on the decision in Rugmini Ganesh (supra)
    to submit that the probation period during the appellant’s service
    should also be counted for calculating his pensionable service. It is
    important to note that Rugmini Ganesh (supra) dealt with the limited
    question of computation of qualifying service, including whether
    pre-confirmation service could be counted, in a situation where
    the employee’s entitlement to pension was already recognized. It
    did not address a case where entitlement itself was in issue. Also,
    in Rugmini Ganesh (supra), the employee’s service record was
    not fundamentally disputed and the issue was confined only to
    the interpretation of the service rules. In the present case, even if
    we for argument’s sake agree to the submission of the appellant
    and include the probation period to calculate the pensionable
    service, he would still not be eligible as he had not attained the
    requisite 50 years of age at the relevant time. Hence, making
    the appellant ineligible under Rule 22(i)(a) of the Pension Fund
    Rules.

       CONCLUSION
32. 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, hence, making him ineligible under
    Rule 22(i)(a). Also, the appellant’s case cannot be said to fall under
[2026] 4 S.C.R.                                                      443

   K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another


     Rule 22(i)(c) since the appellant was never granted VRS, instead his
     services were declared to have been voluntary abandoned. Keeping
     in view that the case of the appellant does not fall in either of the
     above-stated Rules, this Appeal deserves to be dismissed. The same
     is, accordingly, dismissed.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey