Supreme Court: In a case where the 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, BR Gavai and MR Shah, JJ was hearing a reference in a plea of SBI employees seeking pension on completion of 15 years of service as per the State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme, it was held that the employees who completed 15 years of service or more as on cut­off date are entitled to proportionate pension under SBI VRS to be computed as per SBI Pension Fund Rules.

Refraining from burdening the bank with interest, the bench directed,

“Let the benefits be extended to all such similar employees retired under VRS on completion of 15 years of service without requiring them to rush to the court.”

Factual Background

  • After obtaining approval of the Government of India, the Indian Bank Association (IBA) evolved a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Central Board of Directors of SBI adopted and approved the scheme in its meeting held on 27.12.2000 for implementing the VRS for the employees of the bank by retiring them on completion of 15 years of service with the benefit provided in the scheme. The heart and soul of the scheme were that benefits to be given on completion of 15 years of service. The eligibility for benefits was provided to those who had completed 15 years of service as on 31.12.2000.
  • The SBI submitted that it reserved a right under the scheme to modify, amend or cancel it or any of the clauses and to give effect to it from any date deemed fit. The Deputy Managing Director­cum­CDO was the competent authority for the purpose.
  • As specific queries were raised, a clarification was issued by the Deputy Managing Director on 15.1.2001, stating that as per the existing rules, employees who had not completed 20 years of pensionable service, were not eligible for pension.
  • The respondent before the Supreme Court questioned the refusal of the bank to pay pension. He retired on 31.3.2001 under the SBI VRS. On 18.3.2001, the bank accepted the offer of the employee to retire him voluntarily. He was aged 59 years three months and had nine months service still to go before attaining the age of superannuation. On 31.3.2001, when the VRS became effective, he had put in 19 years, nine months, and 18 days of pensionable service. He had to retire on completion of 60 years and would have put in a little more than 20 years of pensionable service.

Taking note of the facts, the Court noticed that once the Central Board of Directors accepted the memorandum for making payment of pension, in case it was not accepting the proposal in the memorandum, it ought to have said clearly that it was not ready to accept the proposals of the Government and the IBA and rejects the same. Once it approved the proposals referred to in the memorandum, which were on the basis of IBA’s letter and Government of India’s decision it was bound to implement it in true letter and spirit cannot invalidate its own decision by relying on fact it failed to amend the rule, whereas other Banks did it later on with retrospective effect.

“They cannot invalidate otherwise valid decision by virtue of exclusive superior power to amend or not to amend the rule and act unfairly and make the entire contract unreasonable based on misrepresentation.”

It further said that while construing a contract, the language and surrounding circumstances of the overall scheme, memorandum and letters are to be read conjointly to find out whether any departure made by the Board of Directors in its Resolution dated 27.12.2000 is of pivotal significance. In this case, the decision was taken by it of approval of the IBA scheme as proposed. Its binding effect cannot be changed on the basis what parties choose to say afterward, nor they can   be permitted to wriggle out. The contract is required to be read as a whole. It is apparent on a bare reading that optees will be eligible for proportionate pension under the Pension Regulations of the bank and therefore, the bank bears the risk of lack of clarity, if any.

 “It was not the provision in the VRS scheme that incumbents having completed 20 years of service would be entitled for pensionary benefits. The scheme was carved out specially for attracting the employees by providing pension and other benefits to eligible persons like ex gratia, gratuity, pension and leave encashment. Deprivation of pension would make them ineligible for the benefits and would run repugnant to the eligibility clause.”

The Court concluded by saying that the basic framework of socialism is to provide security in the fall of life to the working people and especially provides security from the cradle to the grave when employees have rendered service in heydays of life, they cannot be destituted in old age, by taking action in an arbitrary manner and for omission to complete obligation assured one. Though there cannot be estoppel against the law but when a bank had the power to amend it, it cannot take shelter of its own inaction and SBI ought to have followed the pursuit of other banks and was required to act in a similar fair manner having accepted the scheme.

[Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India v. Radhey Shyam Pandey, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 253, decided on 02.03.2020]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release


  • Is there any person who falls under such category and didn’t get pension but now he has been given pension. Kindly let me know as i am also the victim and didn’t get pension.

    • I am V. Ramarao, ex-officer of SBI, who was wiillfully denied pension. Even after Hon’ble High Court at Hyderabad ordered that I had 26 years of pensionable service, (CA 1200 of 2014) SBI, in it’s wisdom, escalated the matter to Hon’ble Supreme court. Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order vide their order in CA 6637 of 2015). Having decided to deny me justice, SBI paid me arrears of pension by fixing my basic pension pay at Rs.2400/ for the period- Dec 1996 to 31-03-2017 & strangely, my basic pension pay for the period, 1-4-2017 onwards at Rs.3404 in clear and willful violation of SBI Pension Rule-23 which was also approved by Govt of India and gazetted. My requests to correct the same were not even replied by SBI! The issue is before Hon’ble High court at Hyderabad – WP 1992 of 2020. In effect, I am not getting correct pension even 26 years after leaving SBI’s service.
      You must pursue the matter in High Court, please.

  • Hi Sir,
    I am the victim who didn’t get pension after taking VRS on 31.3.2001 after putting in 21 years of service and 20 years 5 months comfirmed service. I hope by virtue of S C judgement perhaps i may get pension. Bit when God knows.

  • After the historical judgement of Honorable Supreme Court in SBIVRS case CA 2463/2015, a piquant situation arises:

    1. Bank has to incorporate a Section equivalent to Regulation 28 of Bank Employees Pension Fund Regulations, 1995, to provide pension to employees who have gone on VRS with 15 years service.

    2. This has to be carried out in currently available Pension Regulations, 2014.

    3. But, Honorable Kerala High Court already quashed these SBIEPF Regulations 2014 on 12.4.2019, superceeding SBIEPF Rules 1955, even though both parties filed appeal.

    4. So, legally speaking as on date Bank has no Pension Rules on hand, to incorporate the Regulation 28 Amendment, as both 1955 and 2014 Rules have become infructuous.

    5. Hence, it is advisable the Bank may have to adopt Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995, which has been adopted from time tested CCS (Pension Rules) 1972 and incorporated all the clauses without asking for any “question of Law being raised” in existing obsolete SBI 1955/2014 Pension Rules .

    6. Thus, Bank may withdraw all the pending cases connected with VRS, across all HCs/SC as suitable amendments including Regulation 28 incorporated in adoption of Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995.

    Coming Days will open the eyes of SBI with regard to error free Pension Rules. Honorable SC already severely commented that inaction of the Bank to amend the Act landed them in big problem leading to violation of Article 14, 15, 16, 21.

    Madras High Court
    Retired AGM, SBI

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.