← All recent judgments
Supreme Court of India8 April 20262026 INSC 333

K.G. Seshadri v. Trustees of SBI

Bench of 2 · Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice N.V. Anjaria

Why it matters

Listen

Advocates handling SBI (and analogous bank) pension disputes must note that the Court firmly separates "voluntary abandonment" from "voluntary retirement" — an employee declared to have abandoned service cannot invoke r. 22(i)(c) to claim pension; additionally, the twenty-year pensionable service clock starts from the date of confirmation, not appointment, which can be decisive where the gap between the two dates is significant.

Summary

A former SBI clerk appointed in 1978 and confirmed in February 1979 left for abroad in 1989 without informing the Bank. After returning in 2004 and seeking re-joining, the Bank rejected his request and, by letter dated 21.07.2008, declared that his services had been voluntarily abandoned with effect from 12.12.1998. The appellant then claimed pension benefits of Rs. 8,11,770/- under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, which dismissed the petition for want of a pre-existing right. The Madras High Court Single Judge and, thereafter, the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1065 of 2022 both upheld that dismissal. The Supreme Court, however, chose to decide the matter on merits rather than on the technical ground of maintainability under Section 33C(2).

The Court examined the appellant's twin claims under rr. 22(i)(c) and 22(i)(a) of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955. On r. 22(i)(c) — which entitles a member to pension on completing twenty years' pensionable service at his own written request irrespective of age — the Court held that pensionable service runs from the date of confirmation (17.02.1979) to the date of cessation (12.12.1998) under rr. 20 and 7, yielding only 19 years, 9 months and 25 days, falling short of the twenty-year threshold. Crucially, the Court also held that r. 22(i)(c) presupposes a voluntary retirement at the employee's request, whereas the appellant's services were declared voluntarily abandoned after prolonged unauthorised absence — a fundamentally different legal event. On r. 22(i)(a), the appellant additionally failed to satisfy the age condition of fifty years as on the date of cessation.

The Court distinguished Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. v. Radhey Shyam Pandey [2020] 4 SCR 814 : (2020) 6 SCC 438, noting that in Radhey Shyam Pandey the employees had undisputedly retired under a recognised VRS and the controversy was confined to computation of qualifying service — entitlement itself was not in dispute. The Court similarly distinguished Rugmini Ganesh w/o Ganesh Raman Iyer v. State Bank of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3884, observing that even if the probation period were included, the appellant still failed the age condition under r. 22(i)(a). The appeal was dismissed.

Key principle

Voluntary abandonment of service — declared after prolonged unauthorised absence following notices — is not equivalent to voluntary retirement and does not satisfy the condition under r. 22(i)(c) of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955; further, pensionable service for the purpose of r. 22 is reckoned from the date of confirmation under rr. 20 and 7, not from the date of appointment.

Holding

Dismissed — the appellant completed less than twenty years of pensionable service (reckoned from date of confirmation) and had not attained fifty years of age, disqualifying him under r. 22(i)(a); and his services were voluntarily abandoned, not voluntarily retired, disqualifying him under r. 22(i)(c) of the SBI Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955.

Statutes invoked

  • State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955 · r.22(i)(a)
  • State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955 · r.22(i)(c)
  • State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955 · r.20
  • State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, 1955 · r.7
  • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 · 33C(2)

Practice areas

servicelabour
AI-generated summary, written by Claude Sonnet 4.6 from the court's published judgment. Always verify the original before relying on the summary in court. Generated on 21 May 2026.