1. This Writ Petition is filed (i) to call for the records relating to Proceedings No.HR/9-648, dated 13.06.2007, and reconfirmed Proceedings No.HR-16/1208, dated 6.7.2007, and to set aside the same holding them as illegal and arbitrary, (ii) to declare the order of transfer of the petitioner to Tirupati as illegal and arbitrary, (iii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to pension, and (iv) to direct the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner by counting the entire period of transfer.

2. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior counsel representing Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioner and Sri K.Lakshmi Narayana, learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

3. The succinct facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, as averred in the writ affidavit are that the petitioner was appointed as Grade-I Officer (Hindi) on 02.05.1986 in respondent bank and she was promoted to Grade-II and Grade-III over a period of time; that while she was working as Manager (official Language) in Grade-III cadre, she was transferred from Hyderabad to Tirupati Zonal Office; that thereafter, she made a representation to respondent No.2 requesting to retain her at Hyderabad on medical grounds, i.e., as she was suffering with back sprain and her son was in a regular treatment at Hyderabad, but the same was rejected.

               3.1. It is further averred that as per the policy decision of the respondent-Bank, though 38 officers were sought to be transferred to various other places in the month of January, 2005, all the officers were retained in their original position and the petitioner alone was transferred to Tirupati without even communicating the order of transfer; that thereafter, she submitted a representation requesting to transfer her to Hyderabad for a temporary period since it was affecting her personal life, but the same was rejected on 21.12.2005; that on 24.04.2006, she submitted another representation expressing her inability and requested to retain her in Hyderabad at least for a period of six months, thereby, enabling her to complete the period of eligibility service for pension, failing which, she requested for voluntary retirement; that instead of considering the petitioner’ case for transfer, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 06.05.2006 asked her to submit application for voluntary retirement; that pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted application, dated 16.05.2006, for voluntary retirement on 16.06.2006, but there was no response from the respondent-Bank; that again, she submitted another representation dated 09.08.2006, requesting the officials to reconsider the entire issue and to permit her to work as clerk or as messenger, enabling her to complete the pensionable period, but unfortunately, no action has been taken by the respondent bank and petitioner was relieved from duty w.e.f. 19.08.2006.

               3.2. It is further averred that after her retirement from service, she submitted representation dated 04.03.2007 requesting for pension on average basis, which was followed by three reminders dated 04.04.2007, 04.05.2007 and 24.05.2007; that the petitioner further submitted representation, dated 27.06.2007, to the Chief General Manager requesting for pension on average basis and to consider her case by treating the medical leaves applied by her without pay as leave on special circumstances or at least to consider her case under the permanent medical incapacity for a period of six months for grant of pension; however, her representations were rejected vide proceedings dated 06.07.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

               3.3. Learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was on leave on medical grounds from April to August, 2007 and as such, the said leave cannot be treated as either regular leave or extraordinary leave; that proper interpretation of Rule 21 of the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Regulations, 2014 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations, 2014’) envisages to treat the absence on medical ground as special circumstances; that if the respondent-Bank in its discretion has treated the period of such leave as special leave under Chapter-VII of Regulation-31 G, the petitioner rendered more than 20 years of service in the respondent bank; and hence, as per the Regulations, 2014 of the respondent-Bank, she is entitled to grant of pension.

               3.4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that admittedly, the medical officers of the respondent bank examined the petitioner and certified her sickness, and in such an event, the respondent bank ought to have appreciated that under Rule-22(ii) of Regulations, 2014, the petitioner is entitled for pension based on permanent incapacity and further, the respondent-Bank ought to have appreciated that the provisions of the Regulations, 2014, a beneficial legislation, should be given a liberal interpretation to meet the ends of justice.

               3.5. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that Rules-21 and 22 of the Regulations, 2014, are directory in nature, but not mandatory. The flexibility of the said Rules should be in favour of an employee and the period of medical leave was to be treated as special leave, since, it does not fall within the meaning of leave without pay. Hence, the interpretation given by the respondent bank is erroneous; that the respondent bank ought to have treated the period of transfer as compulsory wait and counted the same as service for the purpose of pension.

               3.6. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that respondent bank has not considered the entire series of events from 2004 onwards till the petitioner was forced to opt for voluntary retirement, which is purely based on arbitrary action of respondent bank and hence, the same ought to have been treated as compulsory/forceful retirement which automatically entitles the petitioner for pension. He finally submitted that in view of the special circumstances, the respondent ought to have considered the petitioner’s case under Rule 22(i)(b) of the Regulations, 2014, for granting pension and under Rule 22(iii) thereof for granting proportionate pension. By contending thus, learned senior counsel prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contentions, relied upon the following judgments:-

               (I) V.Ravi Prabha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2010 (3) ALD 489 (DB)), wherein a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh while dealing with a case where the petitioner therein was denied pension on ground of not putting the minimum qualifying service as per Rules, held that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the petitioner requires reconsideration by the Government in exercise of its powers under Rule 54 of the AP (Revised) Pension Rules, 1980, which empowers it to dispense with or relax certain requirements.

               (II) Sumitra Debbarma vs. State of Tripura (AIRONLINE 2024 TRI 353), wherein a Division Bench of High Court of Tripura held that Rule 88 provides the power of relaxation to the Ministry or Department, if it is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules, causes undue hardship in any particular case.

               (III) Rabilata Rajbongshi vs. Union of India (AIRONLINE 2024 GAU 133), wherein the High Court of Gauhati held that Rule 88 clearly bestows a power to relax any rules if it causes undue hardships in a particular case and in such cases, the requirement of the Rule can be dispensed with or relaxed to such extent to arrive at a just and equitable conclusion.

               (IV) State of Tamil Nadu vs M. Dhinakaran (AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 513), wherein a Division Bench of High Court of Madras held that in order to invoke Rule

               82, the parties must demonstrate that operation of a particular rule causes them undue hardship.

               (V) Sk. Nizamuddin vs. State of Orissa and others ((2016) 2 ORISSA LR 593), wherein a Division Bench of High Court of Orissa held that where a person is so burdensome or onerous to meet such merit, a liberal view of the meaning of word ‘undue hardship’ has to be taken and it will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-bank, by referring to counter affidavit, submitted that petitioner was not comfortable with her juniors, superiors and also the Circle Head i.e., Chief General Manager, and made series of false, mischievous, motivated complaints of imaginary harassment and hence, the respondent Bank thought it appropriate to transfer her to an entirely different environment and accordingly, transferred her to Tirupati, but she joined at Tirupati after availing two months leave and even after joining at Tirupati, she was again on long leave for four months, i.e., from October, 2005, and further, the acts of the petitioner in simultaneously questioning her transfer and requesting the management to transfer her back to Hyderabad, adversely affected the functioning of the department.

               5.1. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner submitted resignation letter on 16.05.2006 and requested to relieve her on 15.06.2006, by recovering three months emoluments from her Provident Fund amount in lieu of three months notice period, but the said request was not accepted; that the petitioner’s Extra-Ordinary Leave on Loss of Pay (EOL on LOP) for 318 days does not count for service, as per Rule No.21(i) of the Regulations, 2014. The total pensionable service, less of EOL on LOP, of the petitioner, as on the date of severance from the bank on 19.08.2006, was 19 years, 04 months and 28 days. Thus, she had not completed the requisite 20 years service and hence, not eligible for pension under the said Rule; that the petitioner was paid all her terminal benefits i.e., Provident Fund of Rs.10,11,996/- and Gratuity amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on 27.12.2006 itself.

               5.2. He further submitted that under the Regulations, 2014, it is very clear that the petitioner is not eligible/qualified for pension as she had not completed the requisite pensionable service of 20 years; and that even under the requisite age criteria, she is not eligible to pension, since at the time of resignation, she was 46 years 02 months and 28 days old. Therefore, the petitioner cannot plead non-appreciation of the Regulations, 2014, by the respondent-Bank and assail the action of respondent bank, which had, in fact, followed the mandatory statutory Rules in true sense.

               5.3. He further submitted that the respondent bank has no discretion to violate the statutory rules and grant pension to the petitioner and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. In support of his contentions learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-bank placed reliance on the following judgments:-

               (I) The State of Odisha and Others vs. Niranjan Sahoo (SLP (Civil) Nos.7089-7090/2020 dated 04.02.2025), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the period of service in terms of fractions is to be calculated as per the following rubric:-

               a). When the period of qualifying service is more than three months but less than six months, said period is to be taken or calculated as one-half year.

               b). When the period of qualifying service is more than 9 months, said period shall be taken as two-half years or one whole year.

               II. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uday Pratap Thakur and another vs. The State of Bihar and Others (2023 SCC OnLine SC 527). It is a case where the work charged service of the petitioners therein was ordered to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension.

               III. Roop Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3385 of 2019 dated 21.10.2022), the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that judicial interpretations cannot override clear statutory exclusions given that the pension rules do not encompass daily wage services for class-III employees and that there is no basis for granting pension based on such services.

               IV. Onkar Singh vs. Union of India (Uoi) and others (2002 (2) BOMCR247), wherein the High Court of Bombay held that re-engagement in armed forces or Indian Navy is a discretionary power rested solely in the competent naval/military authorities. A serviceman or sailor does not possess an absolute, mandatory legal right to compel the authorities to re-engage them or extend their service simply to meet a pension threshold.

               V. Bank of India and others vs. Muthyala Saibaba Suryanarayana Murthy and another (2025 INSC 373), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if belated options are to be accepted, it would bring in its train chaos, confusion and public inconvenience without there being any end in sight and unsettle the very settlement reached by and between the parties which is the foundation of the rights of the subjects.

7. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the pleadings and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

8. From the material placed on record, it is evident that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Grade-I Officer (Hindi) on 02.05.1986, and thereafter promoted to Grade-II and Grade-III and while she was working as Manager (Official Language), Grade-III, she was transferred from Hyderabad to Tirupati. The petitioner sought retention at Hyderabad on medical and personal grounds and subsequently submitted a series of representations seeking transfer back from Tirupati to Hyderabad or retention at Hyderabad at least for a period of seven months to enable her to complete the requisite service for being qualified for pension, and when neither of her requests was considered, ultimately, she submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement and was relieved from service with effect from 19.08.2006. Thereafter, she made representations seeking grant of pension by requesting the Bank to treat the period of absence on medical grounds as special circumstances.

9. The petitioner pleaded mental harassment, threat, violation of right of equality, mala fide intention, immoral acts, etc., against the management of the respondent-Bank in her letter, dated 27.06.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing, had vehemently argued that all the above acts of the Management of the respondent-Bank has compelled or forced the petitioner to resign/voluntarily retire from service, however, this Court feels that while dealing with the solitary issue of entitlement of the petitioner to pension, the said allegations need no advertence.

10. The Regulations, 2014, constitute governing framework for determining entitlement to pension. Under Rule 20 thereof, pensionable service is reckoned subject to the exclusions contained in Rule 21. Rule 21(i) specifically excludes Extra-Ordinary Leave/Leave Without Pay, to the extent prescribed by the Rules, from being counted as pensionable service.

11. Thus, the express exclusion contained in the above Rules mandates that the period for which an employee remained on leave on medical grounds or some extra ordinary grounds, or that he went on leave on Loss of Pay, cannot be counted as pensionable service.

12. The aforesaid Rules assume significance in the context of the petitioner's service particulars. As stated by the respondent-Bank, the petitioner had availed 318 days of Extra-Ordinary Leave on Loss of Pay and hence, under Rule 21(i) of the Rules, the said period cannot be counted for pensionary purpose.

13. It is appropriate to refer to Rule 22 of the Regulations, 2014, and for better appreciation, it is extracted 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 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)

14. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court has recently reiterated the mandatory nature of the qualifying service requirement under Rule 22 of the Regulations, 2014, while considering Rules 7, 20 and 22 thereof, in K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India and another (2026 INSC 333), and held that pensionable service has to be computed in accordance with the Pension Fund Rules and that the requirement of prescribed service of 20 years cannot be bypassed by merely relying upon the initial date of appointment.

15. From the above proposition, it is clear that pensionable service is a statutory/rule-based concept and has to be computed in accordance with the Pension Fund Rules, rather than on the basis of the total period for which an employee physically remained in the service of the Bank.

16. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that even the petitioner in the representation, dated 24.04.2006, made to the respondent-Bank seeking her retention at Hyderabad, has specially requested to continue her at Hyderabad at least for a period of six months thereby enabling her to complete the period of pensionable service. The said request was not acceded to and ultimately, the petitioner submitted application for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 16.06.2006.

17. From the above it is obvious that the petitioner is fully aware that she has not put in requisite period of service of 20 years for enabling her for grant of pension under the Rules of the respondent-Bank.

18. Thus, the assertion of the respondent-Bank that after excluding the period for which the petitioner availed extra-ordinary leave on loss of pay, the pensionable service of the petitioner as on 19.08.2006 was only 19 years, 4 months and 28 days cannot be ignored or faulted with. Accordingly, the respondent-Bank treated the petitioner as ineligible for pension and settled the other terminal benefits payable to her.

19. The contention of the petitioner that she had rendered more than 20 years of overall service cannot confer an enforceable right to pension when the pensionable service calculated in accordance with Rule 21 of the Regulations, 2014 was only 19 years, 4 months and 28 days. Further, the contention of the petitioner that her absence was occasioned on account of medical grounds itself cannot be a ground for counting such leave period as service period. The medical condition may explain the absence, but the question as to whether such period is to be counted for pension has to be determined under the relevant Pension Fund Rules.

20. The petitioner relied upon Rules-21 and 22 of the Regulations, 2014 and contended that the Bank ought to have exercised its discretion to treat the period of her leave as special circumstances.

21. However, a discretionary or equitable consideration cannot ordinarily be invoked to defeat an express condition governing eligibility for pension, particularly when the statutory/regulatory scheme prescribes the qualifying service.

22. Rule 22 of the Regulations, 2014, envisages the minimum service for pension under different categories/ circumstances. Thus, obviously, grant of pension is linked to the prescribed pensionable service and the specified conditions of retirement.

23. The further contention of the petitioner is that due to mental harassment and other factors attributable to the Management of the respondent-Bank, she was compelled to seek voluntary retirement, does not merit any consideration, since, such a ground is unavailable under the Pension Fund Rules.

24. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement and she was relieved from service. This Court cannot substitute a different mode of cessation of service merely on the basis of subsequent assertion of allegations of the petitioner against the Management of the respondent-Bank, unless the material on record establishes that the retirement was in fact involuntary or legally invalid.

25. In K.G. Seshadri (cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has distinguished voluntary retirement from other forms of cessation of service while considering Rule 22 of the Regulations, 2014 and held that entitlement under Rule 22(i)(c) depends upon fulfillment of the conditions prescribed by that provision and the nature of cessation of service is relevant to pension entitlement.

26. The petitioner had completed 19 years, 4 months and 28 days of pensionable service and therefore, the shortfall is not a mere arithmetical discrepancy, but a failure to satisfy the prescribed minimum qualifying service. In fact, the payment of Provident Fund and gratuity benefits to the petitioner demonstrates that the respondent-Bank did not deny all terminal benefits to the petitioner and the dispute is confined to entitlement to pension under the Pension Fund Rules.

27. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner concerning relaxation of rules do not come to the aid of the petitioner in the peculiar facts of the present case and confer an independent right to pension. Such decisions concern relaxation of provisions available under the respective service rules and cannot be applied mechanically to the instant case to dispense with or relax a substantive eligibility requirement under the Regulations, 2014.

28. On the other hand, the judgments relied upon by the respondent- Bank support the principle that where the governing pension rules prescribe a specified qualifying service, this Court cannot rewrite or relax or override the relevant Rules or direct the employer to count a period which the Rules expressly exclude.

29. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-Bank has considered the petitioner's claim for pension strictly in accordance with the Regulations, 2014, and rightly declined to grant pension to her as she has not put in minimum qualifying service of 20 years. The petitioner cannot claim pension as a matter of right merely on the ground that the total period from her initial appointment exceeded 20 years.

30. This Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct payment of pension to the petitioner contrary to the eligibility conditions contained in the governing SBI Pension Fund Rules.

31. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the decision of the respondent-Bank rejecting the petitioner's claim for pension. The impugned proceedings do not warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

32. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

33. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.