B.L. ARORAversusCHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, SYNDICATE BANK

                          [2008] 6 S.C.R 762


A                            B.L. ARORA                                  ...' , I
                                   v.
             CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                        SYNDICATE BANK
                 (Civil Appeal No. 2904 of 2008)
B                          APRIL 22, 2008
         (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

          Service Law
..,
         Syndicate Bank (Employees) pension Regulations,
  1995, Regulation 2410. M. No. 9120169-ECTT dated 26. 8. 1971
  and O.M. No.10147186-SCT(B) dated 10.11.1986 issued by
  the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Pension -
  Counting of past service rendered in Army - Held: An
D employee of bank is entitled to the benefit of military pension,
  if any, but not entitled to get the military service rendered to !Je
                                                                         *-.,
  counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension -
  Various communications, as allegedly issued by ~he
  Government of India, also do not throw any light on the aspect
E of pension.
        Appellant joined short Service Commission in the
  Indian Army and later joined as junior officer in the
  respondent-bank. In the year 2001, he opted for voluntary
  retirement claiming to count the services rendered by him
F in the Army for the purpose of fixation of pension and
  computation of gratuity. The claim was rejected by the                 .._    ..
  authorities in terms of Regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank
  (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995. The incumbent
  challenged the order of the authorities by filing a writ
G petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence
  the present appeal.
          Appellant-employee contended that ti1are was no
      reason/basis to exclude military service wh!le computing
H                                  762
               B.L. ARORA v. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,                 763
                               SYNDICATE BANK
     ~       the pension when such period of service was counted                 A
             for the purpose of seniority and scale of pay.
                  Respondent-employer submitted that in view of the
             clear stipulation in Regulation 24 of the .Syndicate Bank
             (Employees) Pension Regulations, the claim made by the
             appellant is clearly unacceptable;                                  B
    ___,,_

                   Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                  HELD: 1.1 A bare reading of Regulation 24 of the
             Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995
             makes it clear that an employee is entitled to the benefit c
             of military pension, if any, but the military service is not to
             be counted as qualifying service for pension. Stand of
             the appellant is that because he was serving as short
             commissioned officer he is not entitled to the military
             pension. That in no way makes the position better. The D
             object of Regulation 24 is clear that the benefit is available
    ~~
             for rendering service in the military has to be obtained
             from the army, if he is entitled to it. (Para - 7) [765-D,. E, F]
                  State Bank of India v. 0. Hanumantha Rao and Anr
             (1998) 6 sec 183 - held inapplicable.                               E

                  1.2 A bare reading of the communications of the
             Government, Ministry of Finance, Department of
             Economic Affairs, Banking Division, No.9/20/69-ECTT (C)
             dt. 26.8.1971 and No.10/47/86-SCT(B) dt. 10.11.1986,                F

-   ,.\
             goes to show that they relate to only pay fixation and
             seniority and do not throw any light on the pension aspect.
             (Para - 8) [765-G; 766-A]
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
             2904 of 2008.                                                       G
                  From the final Judgment and Order dated 05.04.2005 of
             the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
~-
             5917 of 2003
                  Naveen R. Nath for the Appellant.                              H
    764       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A       A.B. Dail, Manish Chauhan, SumatiAnand, Gopal Kumar              r
    and Raj iv Nanda for the Respondent.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
B         2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a        ,,__
    Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ
    petition filed by the appellant.
          3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
c         Appellant joined Short Service Commission in the Indian
    Army. There was an advertisement issued by the respondent-
    Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') inviting
    applications for the posts of Junior Officers. Out of the total
    number of posts, 25% posts were reserved for Ex. Emergency
D   Commissioned Officers/Short Service Commissioned Officers.
    Appellant appeared in the written test and was declared
                                                                          -j._,.
    qualified. He joined the Bank on 29.3.1976 on being released
    from armed forces. For the purpose of fixation of pay and
    promotion service, rendered by the appellant in armed forces
E   was taken into consideration in view of certain government
    instructions. Appellant opted for voluntary retirement in the year
    2001 in view of a scheme framed by the Bank. Appellant
    thereafter made a claim that the period of military service should
    be taken into account for fixation of pension computation and
F   gratuity. The claim was turned down by the Bank in view of
    Regulation 24 of the Syndicate Bank (Employees) Pension
    Regulations, 1995 (in short the "Regulations"). The appellant          J.. -
    took the stand that in view of the Government of India's
    instructions dated 101h November, 1986, the period of military
    service should be included for the purpose of computing the
G
    pension. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that
    the benefit of earlier army service in terms of Rule 6 of The
     Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short
    Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation on Vacancies)
     Rules, 1971 (in short 'Rules') and Memorandum dated
H
                B.L. ARORA v. CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,                   765
                     SYNDICATE BANK [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]


        '"     21.9.1993 are restricted to the limited purpose of seniority and
               pay fixation.
                                                                                    A
                           .                       :
                     4. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stands
               taken before the High Court. It was submitted that there was no
               reason or basis to exclude military service while computing the
               entitlement of pension when such period of service was counted       B
       --+-    for the purpose of seniority and scale of pay.

                     5. Learned couns.el for the respondents, on the other hand,
               submitted that in view of the clear stipulation in Regulation 24
               the claim made by the appellant is clearly unacceptable.             c
                     6. Regulation 24 reads as follows:

                     "24. MILITARY SERVICE:

                    An employee who has rendered military service before
                    appointment in the Bank shall continue to draw the military     D
                    pension, if any, and military service rendered by the
       ~-.I-
                    employee shall not count as qualifying service for pension."
                     7. A bare reading of Regulation 24 makes it clear that an
               employee is entitled to the benefit of military pension, if any, but
                                                                                     E
               the military service is not to be counted as qualifying service for
               pension. Stand of the appellant is that because the appellant
               was serving as short commissioned officer he is not entitled to
               the military pension. That in no way makes the position better.
               The object of Regulation 24 is clear that the benefit is available
               for rendering service in the military has to be obtained from the F
         ~
               army, if he is entitled to it. The decision in State Bank of India v.
               D. Hanumantha Rao and Anr. (1998 (6) SCC 183) on which
               strong reliance is placed is of no assistance to the appellant.
               The judgment was rendered in a different factual scenario. Stand
               of the appellant is that the government in various memoranda G
               extended service benefit in the matter of pay fixation and
               seniority. Reference is made to the communication of the
       ~       Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
               Economic Affairs, Banking Division No.9/20/69-ECTT (C) dt.
l--.           26.8.1971 and F.No.10/47/86-SCT(B) di. 10.11.1986.                    H
    766       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2008] 6 S.C.R.


A          8. A bare reading of these communications goes to show
    that they relate to only pay fixation and seniority and do not throw
    any light on the pension aspect. It is submitted that at the relevant
    point of time the pension scheme was not in vogue in the Bank.
    If any benefit was intended in the matter of pension as claimed
s   that could have been clearly spelt out in an appropriate office
    memorandum or circular. That has not been done. Therefore,
    the plea advanced has no substance.
        9. Looked at from any angle the appeal is sans merit,
    deserves dismissal, which we direct.
c
          10. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
    S.K.S.                                          Appeal dismissed




                                                                            ,>.