Holding

Clause (5) of Regulation 29 cannot be used to extend qualifying service unless the employee has already completed twenty years of qualifying service; therefore the respondent is not entitled to pension.

Summary

The respondent voluntarily retired from United Bank of India in May 1989 after about 17 years and 10 months of service and later applied for pension under the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The bank rejected his claim, stating he had not completed the required 20 years of qualifying service. The High Court held that clause (5) of Regulation 29 allowed the qualifying service to be extended by five years, interpreting the term "otherwise" broadly, and granted the pension. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the definition of "qualifying service" and applied the ejusdem generis rule, concluding that "qualifying service" is limited to service rendered while on duty and cannot be extended by the five‑year addition unless the employee has already completed 20 years of qualifying service. Consequently, the respondent was not entitled to pension. The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment set aside.

Issues considered

The meaning of 'qualifying service' under Regulation 2(w) of the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995.
Whether clause (5) of Regulation 29 can extend qualifying service by five years for an employee who has not completed 20 years of service.
The proper construction of the word 'otherwise' in the definition of qualifying service, applying the ejusdem generis rule.

Subjects

pensionqualifying servicestatutory interpretationejusdem generisbanking servicevoluntary retirementUnited Bank of Indiaservice regulations

Judgment

(2009] 12 S.C.R. 509

...... UNITED BANK OF INDIA A
v.
PIJUSH KANTI NANDY AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5084 of 2009)
AUGUST 4, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.)
·- ' ..
Service Law - Banking Service - Pension - Entitlement
--+
to - Held: Respondent not entitled to pension as he did not
complete the requisite qualifying service - United Bank of. c
India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regns. 2(w)
and 29(5).

Interpretation of Statutes - 'ejusdem generis' rule -
·Discussed. D
~
Respondent voluntarily retired from appellant-bank
in 1989. l'ension was introduced for employees of
appellant-bank vide the United Bank of India (Employees)
Pension Regulations, 1995, which gave option for
pension to employees who retired from 1986 to 1993. E
Respondent filed application for exercising the option.
The application was dismissed, purportedly since he did
not complete 20 years of qualifying service.

On the date of retirement, the respondent had F
completed about 17 years and 10 months of actual
service. He filed writ petition. The High Court computed
the qualifying service of respondent by including a period
of five years in terms of clause 5 of regulation 29 and
allowed the writ petition. The High Court held that the G
' .>( qualifying servit:e could be extended by a period of five
years which not only took within its umbrage the service
rendered while on duty but also service 'otherwise'
rendered.
509 H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A In appeal to this Court, the question which arose for
consideration was whether the respondent was entitled
to the pensionary benefits having regard to the
provisions contained in clause 5 of regulation 29 of the
United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations,
B 1995.
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. A beneficial legislation should not be
extended to such an extent whereby it would take into
c within its fold a situation which was not contemplated
under the statute. [Para 17] [525-C-D]

1.2. The period of service could not be computed by
including a period of five years in terms of clause (5) of
D Regulation 29. It is not possible to hold in absence of any
express words that the eligibility criteria laid down in the
Regulations for obtaining the benefit of pension i.e., the
qualifying service should be construed in such a manner
that a person even not in service would be deemed to be
in service. The definition of 'qualifying service' is
E
restrictive in nature. It uses the word 'means' and not
'includes' or 'means and includes'. Thus, the construction
of 'qualifying service' must ordinarily be kept confined to
the service rendered while on duty. One may be in service
even otherwise although not rendering any duty. Those
F exigencies of situation are covered by the other types of
cases which would come within the purview thereof. A
person who is not in service cannot be said to be entitled
to the benefits thereof. The term 'otherwise' should be
read ejusdem generis. The term 'otherwise' in the context
G of the 'Regulations' should be construed so that it can ~ '
become meaningful one. For the said purpose, the
employee concerned was required to be in service. The
statute does not raise a legal fiction. [Para 18] [525-D-H;
526-A]
H
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. PIJUSH KANTI NANDY 511
AND ORS.
1.3. The principle underlying this approach to A
statutory construction is that the subsequent general
words were only intended to guard against some
accidental omission in the objects of the kind mentioned
earlier and were not intended to extend to objects of a
wholly different kind. This is a presumption and operates B
unless there is some contrary indication. But the
preceding words or expressions of restricted meaning
must be susceptible of the import that they represent a
class. If no class can be found, ejusdem generis rule is
not attracted and such broad construction as the c
subsequent words may admit will be favoured. [Para 18]
[526-G-H; 527-A]

1.4. In a case of this nature, clause (5) of Regulation
29 would be attracted only in a case where the concerned
employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service. D
Clause (5) of 29 wol'ld be applicable for the purpose of
granting a higher monetary benefit in the matter of
computation of pension. It does not provide for
measurement of the period. [Para 20] [527-G-H; 528-A]
E
Bank of Baroda & Ors. v. Ganpat Singh Oeora (2009) 1
SCALE 168 and Indian Bank & Anr. v. N. Venkatramani
(2007) 10 sec 609, distinguished.

Bank of India & Anr. v. K. Mohandas & Ors. 2009 (4)
SCALE 576, relied on. F

R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income
Tax 2008 (8) SCALE 223; Union of India & Anr. v. Bashirbhai
R. Khilji (2007) 6 SCC 16; Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd.
v. Union of India & Anr. (1989) 2 SCC 458 and National G
' :i4 7extile Corporation (M.P.) Limited v. MR. Jadhav (2008) 7
sec 29, referred to.
B. Monck v. Hilton 46 LJMC 167, referred to.

Advanced Law Lexicon; 3rd Edition, 2005 and Statutory H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A Interpretation by Rupert Cross, referred to

Case Law Reference:

2008 (8) SCALE 223 referred to Para 12

(2009) 1 SCALE 168 distinguished Para 14
B
2009 (4) SCALE 576 relied on Para 15

(2007) 6 sec 16 referred to Para 16

(2001) 1o sec 609 distinguished Para 17
c
(1989) 2 sec 458 referred to Para 18

(2ooa) 1 sec 29 referred to Para 19

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
D 5084 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 19.09.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature at Calcutta in G.A. No. 2638 of 2003 in
A.P.O. No. 256 of 2003 in A.P.O. T. No. 186 of 2003 in W.P.
No. 420 of 2002.
E
Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Mohit Abraham, T.S.
Sabarish (for K.L. Mehta & Co.) for the Appellants.

Rana Mukherjee, Siddharth Gautam, Goodwill lndeevar, for
F the Respondents. \

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The Service Conditions of the employees of United
G
Bank of India are governed by United Bank of India (Officers) )< '

Service Regulations, 1979 (for short, 'the Regulations).

Regulation 19 of the Regulations reads as under:

H
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. PIJUSH KANTI NANDY 513
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

"19.(1) The age of retirement of an officer employee shall A
be as determined by the Board in accordance with the
guidelines issued by the Government from time to time-

Provided that the Bank may, at its discretion, on
review by the Special Committee as provided hereinafter B
in sub-regulation (2) retire an officer employee on or.at any
time after the completion of 55 years of age or on or at
any time after the completion of 30 years of total service
as an officer employee or otherwise, whichever is earlier;

Provided further that before retiring an officer employee, c
at least three months' notice in writing or an amount
equivalent to three months' substantive salary/pay and
allowances, shall be given to such officer employee;

Provided also that nothing in this regulation shall be D
deemed to preclude an officer employee from retiring
earlier pursuant to the option exercised by him in
accordance with the rules in the Bank.

Explanation :
E
An officer employee will retire on the last day of the month
in which he completes his age of retirement.

(2) The Bank shall constitute a Special Committee,
consisting of not less than three members, to review, F
whether an officer employee should be retired in
accordance with the first proviso to this regulation. Such
Committee shall, from time to time, review the case of
each officer employee and no order of retirement shall be
made unless the Special Committee recommends in
G
·~ writing to the Competent Authority the retirement of the
officer employee."

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
Respondent No.1 herein joined his services in the appellant
bank as MMG Scale-II. On or about 13.2.1989, he sought H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A voluntary retirement in terms of Regulation 19 of the
Regulations. The Bank accepted his offer vide its letter dated
8.5.1989. Respondent No.1 was allowed to take voluntary
retirement w.e.f. 31.5.1989.

B 4. On or about 1.11.1993, The United Bank of India
(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1993 were introduced for
employees of the appellant-Bank. Option from the employees
retired between 1.1.1986 and 1.11.1993 was sought for by the
appellant on or before 30.7.1994. However, the last date for
C receiving such option was extended till 30.9.1994 vide a circular
dated 30.9.1994.

On or about 1.9.2001, the respondent No.1 filed an
application for exercising his option for pension. The appellant,
vi de its letter dated 10.10.2001 informed him that he was not
D entitled to give any option for the said purpose.

Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said letter, the
respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of
Judicature at Calcutta, which was marked as W.P. No.490 of
E 2002, praying therein for the following reliefs:

"(a) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents and each of them their men, servants,
agents, and assigns to act in accordance with the
law and allow Pension Benefits to the writ petitioner
F from the date of his retirement in terms of the United
Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulation
1995;

(b) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the
G respondents and especially the respondent Nos 1,
)<. •
2 and 3 to forthwith cancel and/or rescind the letter
dated 10th October, 2001 being Annexure 'P-9'
hereto;

(c) Writ in the nature of Prohibition directing and
H commanding the respondents and each of them to
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. PIJUSH KANTI NANDY 515

- -4
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
desist from withholding the Pension Benefits to the A
petitiQne;r;

(d) A writ in \he nature of Certiorari directing and
commanding the responqe;nts and each qf ttiem to
transmit and produce all the records relating to this
B
case to th€l &<lid Hon'l?IE? Court qfter c~rtifyir19 the
same to that cqnsciqngble justice may be
rendered;
~
(e) An order of injunction restraining the respondents
and/or each of them their servants, men, agents & c
assigns from withholding and/or continuing to
withhold the pensionary benefits of the writ
petitioner;

(f) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers above." D
Counter affidavit as also a su_pplementary counter affidavit
to the writ petition were filed by the appellant.

The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single
Judge of the High Court by his order dated 20.3.2003. The E
appellant-Bank preferred an intra court appeal thereagainst
which was also dismissed by the Division Bench by reason of
the impugned judgment.

5. The appellant is, thus, before us.
F
6. The respondent voluntarily retired from the services of
the Bank as far back as on 31.5.1989 as has been noticed by
us hereinbefore. He claimed the benefit of pension which was
introduced by reason of a Regulation known as United Bank
of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. The G
' :,(
Regulations were published in the Official Gazette on 29.9.1995
and in terms of clause (2) of regulation 1, they were to come
into force on the said date.

7. A writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court in H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A j!s decision in Bank of India v. lndu Rajagopalan & Ors. [JT ~-

2000 (10) SC 334] held that the benefit of the said Regulations
should be extended to those employees who have retired on
or after 1.1.1986. It is also not in dispute that the respondent
as on the date of his retirement completed 17 years 10 months
B and 17 ~ys of actual service.
8. The core question which arises for consideration herein
is as to whether having regard to the provisions contained in
clause (5) of Regulation 29 of the Regulations, he would be ~

entitled to the pensionary benefits.
c
Regulation 2(n) defines 'employee' to mean :
-

" 'employee' means any person employed in the service
of the Bank on full time work on permanent basis or on
D part-time work or permanent basis on scale wages and
who opts and is governed by these regulations, but does
not include a person employea either on contract basis or
daily wage basis or on consolidated wages."

Regulation 2(w) defines 'qualifying service' as under :
E
"'.qualifying service' means the service rendered while on
duty or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the
purpose of pension un.der these regulations."

9. The Regulations, as noticed hereinbefore, was to apply
F
to the employees who were in service on or after the first day
of January 1986 or who had retired before the first day of
November 1993 and exercised the option in writing within the
period prescribed therein.

G Chapter IV of the Regulations provided for qualifying )< -

service. We may notice Regulations 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 21
of the said Regulations which read as under :

"14. Qualifying Service - Subject to the other conditions
contained in these regulations, an employee who has
H .
<
~

UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. PIJUSH KANTI NANDY 517
--.. AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

-1 rendered a minimum of ten years of service in the Bank A
on the date of his retirement or the date on which he is
;.
deemed to have retired shall qualify for pension

15. Commencement of qualifying service - Subject to the
provisions contained in these regulations, qualifying
B
service of <1n employee shall commence from the date he
takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed on
a permanent basis.
·--..+- 16 ....
c
17. Counting of periods spent on leave -All (eave during
service in the Bank for wnich leave salary is payable shall
count as qualifying service;

Provided that extraordinary leave on loss of pay shall not
D
count as qualifying service except when the sanctioning
~
authority has 'directed that such leave not exceeding twelve
months during the entire service, may count as service for
all purposes including pension.

Broken period of service of less than one year - If the .E
period of service of an employee includes broken period
of service less than one year, then if such broken period
is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year
and if such broken period is six months or less it shall be
ignored. F

19. Counting of period spent on training - Period spent
by an employee on training in the Bank immediately before
his appointment shall count as qualifying service.

20 .... G
-~
21. Period of suspension - Period of suspension of an
employee pending enquiry shall count for qualifying service
where, on conclusion of such enquiry, he has been fully
exonerated or the suspension is held to be wholly H
A
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

unjustified, and in other cases, the period of suspension
-
shall not count as qualifying service unless the Competent
Authority passing the ordeirs under the Service Regulations
or Discipline and Appeal regulations or Settlements
gpyerning such cases expressly declares at the time that
8 it shall count to such extent as such authority may declare."

10. In the aforementioned backdrop, we may notice the
provisions contained in Chapter of the Regulations titled
'Classes of Pension'. Regulation 28 provides for ~
C superannuation pension. Pension on voluntary retirement is
governed by Regulation 29; clause (1) whereof reads as under

"Pension on Voluntary Retirement -

D (1) On or after 1st day of November, 1993, at any time
after an employee has completed twenty years of
qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not

E
less than three months in writing to the appointing
authority, retire from service;

Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to
an employee who is on deputation or on study leave
-
abroad unless after having been transferred or
having returned to India he has resumed charge of
the post in India and has served for a period of not
F less than one year;

Provided further that this sub-regulation shall not
apply to an employee who seeks retirement from
service for being absorbed permanently in an
G autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or
company or institution or body, whether
incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at
the time of seeking voluntary retirement;

Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to
H an employee who is deemed to have retired in
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. PIJUSH KANTI NANDY 519
AND ORS. [S.S. SINHA; J.]
accordance With clause (1) of regulation 2." A
Clause (2) of Regulation 29 provides for acceptance of
notice of voluntary. retirement by the appointing authority. Other
procedural provisions are contained in clauses (3) and (4).
Clause (5) of Regulation 29 reads as under :
8
"(5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring
voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased
\ by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the
~·
condition that the total qualifying service rendered
by such employee shall not in any case exceed C
thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond
the date of superannuation."

11. The learned Sing~e Judge as also the Division Bench
of the High Court on construction of the provisions of clause D
)>- (5) of Regulation 29 was of the opinion that the qualifying
service could be extended by a period of five years having
regard to the definition thereof which not only takes within its
umbrage the service rendered while on duty but also service
'otherwise' rendered.
E
12. The meaning of the word 'otherwise' as given in
'Advanced Law Lexicon' (3rd Edn - 2005) is as under :
--+
"By other like means; contrarily; different from that to which
it relates; in a different manner; in another; in any other way; F
differently in other respects in different respects; in some
other like capacity."

[See R & B Falcon (A) Pty. Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Income Tax [2008 (8) SCALE 223].
G
As a general rule, 'otherwise', when following an
enumeration, should receive an ejusdem generis interpretation
(per CLEASBY, B. Monck v. Hilton 46 LJMC 167. The words
'or otherwise', in law, when used as a general phrase following
an enumeration of particulars, are commonly interpreted in a H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A restricted sense, as referring to such other matters as are
kindred to the classes before mentioned, (Cent. Diet.)"

13. Contention of Mr. Mehta is that the said word only
takes within its purview those classes of cases which are
B noticed in Chapter IV of the Regulations and not for the purpose
of extending the period of qualifying service. We agree. Service
may not be actually rendered but must be otherwise rendered.
This presupposes that the relationship of employer and
employee must continue at all relevant times.

C 14. Mr. Mukherjee relied upon a recent decision in Bank
of Baroda & Ors. v. Ganpat Singh Deora [(2009) 1 SCALI::
168) wherein this Court was considering the provisions of the
Pension of Regulations of Bank of Baroda providing for pay-
ability of pension to an employee who as on 31.01.2001, would
D have completed a minimum of 15 years of service or who could
be completing 40 years of age. The respondent therein at that
point of time merely had completed 13 years of service. Despite
that, his application for voluntary retirement was accepted.
When, however, he had sought for the benefits applicable to
E him under the Pension Scheme in addition to other retiral
benefits, the same was not acceded to. It was in the
aforementioned factual matrix, the interpretation of Regulation
14, 28 and 29 came up for consideration. An argument was
advanced therein that the terms and conditions of the voluntary
F retirement scheme were different from voluntary retirement
contemplated under Regulation 29, as in such an event,
Regulation 14 will apply containing the general conditions. That
argument was rejected, stating :

"18. However, we are inclined to agree with Ms. Bhati that
G Regulation 29 does not contemplate voluntary retirement
under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and applies only
to such employees who themselves wish to retire de hors
any Scheme of Voluntary Retirement, after having
completed 15 years of qualifying service for the said
H
'.
'
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. PIJUSH KANTI NANDY 521
AND ORS. [S.R SINHA, J.]
purpose. !here is a distinct difference between the two A
situations and Regulation 29 would not cover the case of
an employee opting to retire on the basis of a Voluntary
Retirement Scheme.

19. Furthermore, Regulation 2 of the Voluntary Retirement B
Scheme, 2001, of the appellant-Bank merely prescribes
a period of qualifying service for an employee to be
eligible to apply for voluntary retirement. On the other hand,
Regulations 14 and 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995,
relate to the period of qualifying service for pension under
the said Regulations, in two different situations. While
c
Regulation 14 provides that in order to be eligible for
pension an employee would have to render a minimum of
10 years service, Regulation 29 is applicable to the
employees choosing to retire from service pre- maturely,
and in their case the period of qualifying service would be D
.,. 15 years."

We are not concerned with such a case.

We must also notice that Mr. Mukherjee, learned counsel E
appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that if
Regulation 29 applies, there is no reason as to why clause (5)
thereof shall not apply.
--+
15. However, in a subsequent decision of this Court in
Bank of India & Anr. v. K. Mohandas & Ors. [2009 (4) SCALE F
576]. In that case also Bank of India offered· a Voluntary
retirement scheme a similar question had come up for
consideration:· Clause (5) of Regulation 29 came up for
consideration therein although the case stricto sensu was
concerned with the voluntary retirement scheme itself. The High G
~ o(
Court, however, noticed that two different views expressed by
the Kerala High Court in paragraph 19 of the judgment. Upon
noticing the rival contentions of the parties, the following was
formulated :
H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A "The principal question that falls for our determination is:
whether the employees (having completed 20 years of
service) of these banks (Bank of India, Punjab National
Bank, Punjab & Sind Bank, Union Bank of India and United
Bank of India) who had opted for voluntary retirement under
B VRS 2000 are entitled to addition of five years of notional
service in calculating the length of service for the purpose
of the said Scheme as per Regulation 29(5) of Pension
Regulations, 1995?"

The High Court rejected his submission that if the
C Regulations including clause (5) of Regulcttion 29 is ctpplied for
the purposed of voluntary retirement scheme, it would create
an anomalous situation inasmuch as two different class of
employees for the purpose of granting pension would be
created. The Court distinguished the Bank of Baroda's case
D (supra), opining that the same was rendered in the facts thereof,
stating:

"49. It is true that the controversy in the case of Bank of
Baroda arose out of the same voluntary retirement scheme
E with which we are concerned in this group of appeals.
However, there is vital factual difference in that case and
this group of appeals. Pertinently that was a case where
the employee had completed only 13 years of service (not
even 15 years of service much less 20 years' service)
F although he completed 40 years of age at the time he
offered for voluntary retirement. The employee's application
therein for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Bank
of Baroda and he was paid all retiral benefits. However,
his request for grant of pension in addition to the other
retiral benefits was not acceded to by the bank. It was so
G
because he had not completed even 15 years of service.
The employee pursued industrial adjudicatory process for
redressal of his grievance in respect of non-grant of
pension by the bank. The employee's claim was opposed
by the Bank of Baroda contending that in terms of
H
UNITED BANK OF !NOIA v. PIJUSH KANT! NANDY 523
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
~ Regulations 14, 28 and 29 of the Pension Regulations, A
1995, the employee was not entitled to pension. The
observations made by this Court in Bank of Baroda which
have been quoted above and relied upon by the banks in
support of their contention have to be understood in the
factual backdrop namely, that the employee had B
completed only 13 years of service and, was not eligible
for the pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995 and
for the benefit of addition of five years to qualifying service
under Regulation 29(5), an employee must have completed
20 years of service. The question therein was not identical c
in form with the question here to be decided. The following
observations in paragraph 11 of the report in Bank of
Baroda are significant:

... since both the Tribunal as well as the High Court
appear not to have considered or taken note of the D
fact that the respondent was not eligible for pension
as he had not completed 15 years of qualifying
service ....

50. The decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda is, thus, E
clearly distinguishable as the employee therein had not
completed qualifying service much less 20 years of service
---1 for being eligible to the weightage under Regulation 29(5)
and cannot be applied to the present controversy nor does
that matter decide the question here to be decided in the F
present. group of matters."

It was laid down :

"53. We hold, as it must be, that the employees who had
,. ~
completed 20 years of service and were pension optees G
and offered voluntary retirement under VRS 2000 and
whose offers were accepted by the banks are entitled to
addition of five years of notional service in calculating the
length of service for the purposes of that Scheme as per
Regulation 29(5) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.

A contrary view expressed by some of the High Courts do
not lay down the correct legal position."

We respectfully agree with the view expressed therein.

16. What is qualifying service has been explained in Union
. B of India & Anr. v. Bashirbhai R. Khilji ((2007) 6 SCC 16],
wherein this Court held that the respondent being constable in
the Central Reserve Police Force, the Central Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 are applicable. Rule 49 stipulates that
the minimum qualifying service of ten years is required for
C extending the pension benefit. It was stated that 'for grant of
any kind of pension, one has to put in the minimum of ten years
of qualifying service'.

In that case, Respondent was appointed as armed
0 constable in central reserve police force. He suffered from
pyrogenic meningitis and neurosensory defines while on duty.
He was invalidated from service after he was declared unfit for
duty. Respondent request for invalid pension was rejected on
the ground that he had not completed 10 years of service. The
E Division Bench of High Court held that the respondent was
entitled to the invalid pension since his invalidity was 100% and
the condition of ten years of qualifying service could not invoked
so as to deny the respondent invalid pension.

17. We may notice that this Court in Indian Bank & Anr.
F v. N. Venkatramani ((2007) 10 SCC 609], held :

"13. It may be true that various provisions of the
Regulations as for example Regulations 16, 17, 19, 23, etc.
provided for qualifying service. Regulation 18 is not
controlled by any of the said provisions. It does not brook
G
any restrictive interpretation. It only provides for a rule of
measurement. An employee, as noticed hereinbefore, was
entitled to pension provided he has completed the
specified period of service. How such a period of service
would be computed is a matter which is governed by the
H
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. PIJ'USH KANT! NANDY 525
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
statute. It is one thing to say that a statute provides for A
completion of fifteen years of minimum service, but if a
provision provides for measurement of the period, the
same cannot be lost sight of. Provision of the Regulations
which are beneficial in nature, in our opinion, should be
construed liberally." B

In that case, the question arose as to how the lack in
period of service of less than one year shall be construed. This
--..,( Court held that Regulation 18 was not controlled by Regulations
16, 17, 19, 23 etc. as it provided for a Rule of Measurement.
c
It, is however, trite that even a beneficial legislation should
not be extended to such an extent whereby it would take into
within its fold a situation which was not contemplated under the
statute.
D
.. period18.ofCould the period of service computed by including a
five years as provided for in clause (5) of Regulation
29 is the question. In our opinion, it was not. Definition of
'qualifying service' is restrictive in nature. It uses the word
'means' and not 'includes' or 'means and includes'. Thus, the
E
construction of 'qualifying service' must ordinarily be kept
confined to the service rendered while on duty. He may be in
....., service even otherwise although not rendering any duti Those
exigencies of situation are covered by the other types of cases
which would come within the purview thereof. A person who is
F
not in service cannot be said to be entitled to the benefit thereof.
The term 'otherwise' should be read ejusdem generis. The tem1
'otherwise' in the context of the 'Regulations' shoul.d be
construed so that it can become meaningful one. For the said
purpose, the employee concerned was required to be in
' _,._ service. It is not possible to hold in absence of any express G
words that the eligibility criteria laid down in the Regulations
for obtaining the benefit of pension, i.e., the qualifying service
should be construed in such a manner that a person even not
in service would be deemed to be in service. The statute does
H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 12 S.C.R.

A not raise a legal fiction. A strict construction of the term
"qualifying service" therefor, in our opinion, would not be
appropriate.

In Siddeshwari Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI)
B & Anr. ((1989) 2 SCC 458), the Supreme Court while
discussing the definition of 'manufacture' under section 2(f) of
the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 whether the relevant
process fall within 'any other process" thereby within the
provision of section 2(f)(v) the Court looked at the meaning of
'the expression ejus-dem-generis ... ' which means of the same
C kind or nature' ... signifies a principle of construction whereby
words in a statute which are otherwise wide but are associated
in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a
restricted operation and are limited to matters of the same
class or genus as preceding them. If a list or string or family of
D genus-describing terms is followed by wider or residuary or
sweeping-up words, then the verbal context and the linguistic
implications of the preceding words limit the scope of such
words.

E The Court also discussed various other texts while looking
at the term.

In 'Statutory Interpretation' Rupert Cross says:

"... The draftsman must be taken to have inserted the
F general words in case something which ought to have
been included among the specifically enumerated items
had been omitted ... "

The principle underlying this approach to statutory
G construction is that the subsequent general words were only
intended to guard against some accidental omission in the ~ •
objects of the kind mentioned earlier and were not intended to
extend to objects of a wholly different kind. This is a
presumption and operates unless there is some contrary
H indication. But the preceding words or expressions of restricted
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. PIJUSH KANTI NANDY 527
AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
-~
meaning must be susceptible of the import that they represent A
a class. If no class can be found, ejusdem generis rule is not
attracted and such broad construction as the subsequent words
may admit will be favoured. As a learned author puts it:

''.)fa class can be found, but the specific words exhaust
B
the class, then rejection of the rule may be favoured
because its adoption would make the general words
unnecessary; if however, the specific words do not exhaust
the class, then adoption of the rule may be favoured
because its rejection would make the specific words
unnecessary."
c
Cessation of contract of service may be of different types,
i.e., by punishment or by end of contract. It, however; does not
take within its purview an order of suspension as the same does
not bring about a cessatiorL D
"1
19. In National Textile Corporation (M.P.) Limited v. M.R.
Jadhav [(2008 (7) SCC 29], this Court held:

"Subject, of course, to the terms "invitation to treat" as also
those of the offer as envisaged under the Contract Act, an E
offer has to be accepted. Unless an offer is accepted, a
binding contract does not come into being. A voluntary
retirement scheme contemplates cessation of the
relationship of master and servant. The rights and
obligations of the parties thereto shall become enforceable F
only on completion of the contract. Unless such a stage is
reached, no valid contract can be said to have come into
force. Acceptance of an offer must, therefore, be
communicated."
.. ~
20. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in a case of this
G

nature, clause (5) of Regulation 29 would be attracted only in
a case where the concerned employee has completed 20
years of qualifying service. Clause (5) of 29 would be applicable
for the purpose of granting a higher monetary benefit in the
H
528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A matter of computation of pension. It does not provide for ~.
measurement of the period as was in the case of Indian Bank
(supra).

21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned
B judgment cannot be sustained, it is set aside accordingly. The
appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of
this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

B.B.B. Appeal allowed.