Madras High Court
V. Kasturi And Ors. vs The Managing Director, State Bank Of ... on 28 June, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)2MLJ473
ORDER Bakthavatsalam, J.
1. The, prayer in the writ petition is as follows:
...to issue a writ of declaration declaring that Pension Rules denying the petitioners of their Pension and Gratuity at the rate specified under Regulation 46(2) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 as arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners who had put in a minimum of 10 years of service, pension or pro-rata pension failing which gratuity at the rate specified in Regulation 46(2) together with 18% interest from the date of resignation....
2. The writ petition is preferred by seven officers of the State Bank of India, who joined on various dates in service. At the time of joining they were asked to sign that they are becoming the members of the Pension Scheme. It is stated that under Regulation 45 of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979, (hereinafter referred to as the "Order, 1979") the petitioners had no option but to become members of the scheme. Under the Pension Rules, as originally framed, it seems that an officer became entitled to pension only after completing 25 years of service which period was later on reduced to twenty years with effect from 20.9.89. Under Rule 46 of the Order, only an officer not governed by the Pension Scheme was entitled to gratuity in the event of retirement, death, disablement and in case of resignation on completion of 10 years of continuous service, subject to a maximum of 15 months pay. The first petitioner has completed 20 years and 9 months of service and the petitioners 2 to 7 have completed almost 16 years of service. It is alleged in the affidavit that the petitioners have resigned on various dates due to certain personal and family reasons between 1980 and 1986 and that at the lime of resignation all petitioners had completed not less than ten years of service and that they have not completed 25 years of service. It is alleged in the affidavit that all the petitioners were denied pension on the ground that they have not completed 25 years of service, even though the qualifying period was reduced to 20 years of service. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the petitioners were denied the gratuity given to officers who had resigned on completing ten years of service at the rate of one month's substantive pay mentioned in Regulation 46(2) on the ground that they were governed by the Pension Scheme and that the gratuity they got is very low. It is alleged in the affidavit that the State Bank of India is an 'authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India because more than 90% of the shares are owned by the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Government exercises deep and pervasive control over the State Bank through the Reserve Bank. It is also stated that, the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India are available to the petitioners as they are employees of the State Bank of India, that Pension and Gratuity are properly within the meaning of Art 300-A of the Constitution of India and that it cannot be abridged or taken away except by law which is fair and reasonable. It is also alleged that the respondents cannot act arbitrarily while dealing with the matter of payment of pension or gratuity. It is also alleged that pension rules framed by the respondents bank fixing 25 years, now it is fixed as 20 years, as qualifying service for pension is unreasonable, excessive and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A-of the Constitution of India, that when an officer On completing ten years continuous service is entitled to gratuity on resignation, there is no reason why he should not be entitled to pension or pro-rata pension on completing a similar period and that the qualifying period of 25 years and now 20 years of service is unreasonable and arbitrary as it deprives an officer totally of pension. It is also alleged in the affidavit that when part time employees who work for more than six hours a week are entitled to pension in proportion to the hours they work in comparison with the normal working hours of full time employees, there is no reason for the total denial of pension to them, that they should be paid pension in proportion to the years of service the petitioners had put in, since the minimum qualifying period for pension being ten years of service. It is also stated in the affidavit that the total denial of pension is discriminatory and violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of India, that the Fourth Pay Commission has recommended that on completing ten years of service, a government servant should get pension and as such the present rates in the respondents Bank are unreasonable. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the petitioners who have put in more than ten years of service should have been granted pension in proportion to 20 years of service and that in any event total denial of pension to the first petitioner who had completed 20 years and 9 months of service is unjust and arbitrary. It is also alleged that in Canara Bank, full gratuity is paid to officers who resign after ten years of continuous service and that there is no reason why the respondent Bank should prescribe two rates of gratuity one under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the other under Regulation 46(2) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Serv-ice) Order, 1979. Certain names of officers are referred to in the affidavit to show that certain officers who resigned before completing the qualifying period of pensionable service were paid full gratuity and as such the petitioners herein are discriminated. It is also stated that the petitioners herein are the only set of officers who do not get pension are denied full gratuity as per Regulation 46(2) and that it is unjust and arbitrary. With these allegations, the petitioners are before this Court, with the prayer stated above.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents Bank. It is stated in the counter affidavit to challenge the validity of that Regulation 46(2) of the D.T.C.S. Order, the petitioners have not acquired any right. It is stated in the counter affidavit that all the seven petitioners were officers of the respondent Bank, that all of them resigned from and left the service of the respondent Bank on their own accord to seek better avenues in life and that all of them are gainfully employed from the time they relinquished their services with the respondent Bank. It is also stated that during the period the petitioners were in service with the respondent Bank, the terms and conditions of their service with the respondent Bank were contractual in nature and governed by the D.T.C.S. Order which embodied the contract of service between the bank and its officers. The facts stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit with regard to the service of the petitioners put in the respondent Bank is admitted in the counter affidavit. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents Bank that the Bank has constituted a pension fund for its employees, called the 'State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund,' that originally the rule was that an employee to be eligible for payment of pension must serve the Bank for a minimum period of 25 years, that subsequently additional provisions were made in the rule with effect from 20.9.1986 that those members of the Pension Fund who retire from the Bank's service after completing 20 years of pensionable service shall been titled to proportionate pension, the age of superannuation being 58. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that originally there was no gratuity scheme for the respondent Bank, that subsequently the Bank started recruiting specialist officers like Law Officers and Technical Officers, and that to provide alternative superannuation benefit to them who are not eligible for pension, the respondent Bank introduced the gratuity scheme providing a minimum service of ten years of eligibility for payment of gratuity. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in terms of Rule 45 of the D.T.C.S. Order, by which the petitioner's service with the respondent-Bank was governed and which was binding on them an officer of the Bank who by virtue of his age at the time of his joining the Bank's service can serve for 25 years shall become a member of the Pension Fund, that all the petitioners by virtue of their age at the time of joining the Bank were eligible to serve for more than 25 years, and as such they were admitted to the membership of the pension fund to be eligible for pension on each of them completing the minimum period of service and that the scheme of voluntary retirement and eligibility of pension on completion of 20 years of pensionable service was not in vogue when the petitioners resigned nor have they retired under the scheme which came into effect from 20.7.1986. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that the gratuity scheme is applicable only to those who on the basis of their age at-the time of their entry into the service of the respondent Bank will not become eligible to draw pension, and as such Rule 46 of the D.T.C.S. Order provides that an officer to whom Rule 45 does not apply shall be eligible for payment of gratuity on retirement, resignation etc. and that the said Rule is not applicable to the petitioners herein. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that if is true that the petitioners had completed ten years of service with the respondent Bank and that the allegation that they were denied pension is neither true nor justified. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that under the contract of service by which the services of the petitioners with the Bank were governed, they were not eligible for pension as they did not complete 25 years service with the respondent Bank, and that fully aware of the fact that they were not eligible for pension or for claiming gratuity, the petitioners voluntarily resigned from the Bank's service and as such it is meaningless to complain of loss of a benefit the right to receive which did not exist, It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that the right to receive pension and gratuity can be considered as proper only if the person claiming it is eligible to draw them under the rules applicable to his service and the rules applicable to the payment of pension and gratuity, that in the case of the petitioners none of them was entitled to payment of any gratuity', that admittedly the petitioners did not under the pension rules and Rule 45 of the D.T.C.S. Order become eligible for pension as they left the respondent Bank before completion of 25 years of service and as such the respondent Bank has not acted arbitrarily with the petitioners in the matter of settlement and payment of the dues to which they became entitled on their resignation from the Bank's service. The contention of the petitioners that the pension rules fixing a minimum period of service (25 years originally and new 20 years) for eligibility to the benefit of pension are unreasonable and excessive and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, is denied in the counter affidavit. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that no comparison can be made between the rules applicable to eligibility to pension, and the eligibility to payment of gratuity, that it is baseless and totally unjustificable to compare the case of part-time employees with that of the petitioners herein and that there is no liability to pay pension to officers who do not serve the Bank for the minimum period fixed in Rule 45 of the D.T.C.S. Order, With regard to the first petitioner it is stated that at the time when the first petitioner resigned from the service of the respondent Bank, the requirement was that an officer in order to be eligible for payment of pension should serve for 25 years, that the first petitioner did not satisfy the said requirement and as such he is not entitled to claim payment of pension. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that by. the very nature of their employment, the petitioners were not entitled to . gratuity .and that since they failed to serve for the minimum qualifying period they were not entitled to claim pension. It is further claimed in the counter affidavit that there is no justification for Comparing the conditions of service applicable to officers of Canara Bank with those of the petitioners herein, since the Bank's pension scheme was applicable to all the petitioners, but they failed to fulfil the conditions required for eligibility to payment of pension. It is also claimed in the counter affidavit that there no logic in the argument that an officer who is not eligible to draw pension must have the benefit of gratuity, that Rule 46 of D.T.C.S. Order did not cover officers who are covered by Rule 45 but who on account of voluntary relinquishment of the posts held by them disentitle themselves for payment of pension, that there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that Vaghul and Chatlier resigned from the Bank's service prior to December 15,1976 and as such their cases are not comparable to the case of the petitioners. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that fully knowing that by their cessation from the Bank's service by resignation, the petitioners rendered themselves ineligible to get pension, that they left the Bank's service to take up employment elsewhere which they considered carrier-wise better and as such there is no violation of Articles 14, 16 or 300-A of the Constitution of India.
4. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the pension scheme of the respondent Bank was amended on 20.9.1986, by which the earlier provision of 25 years continuous service for eligibility to pension was reduced to 20 years of service. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent Bank cannot confine the scheme only to the persons who retire after 20.9.1986, that the petitioners were governed by pension scheme and that any amendment made will be applicable to all classes of employees available under the scheme, the. sum and substance of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that when the petitioners were governed by the pension scheme and the pension scheme was amended on 20.9.1986 reducing the period of eligibility for pension from 25 years of service to 20 years, it is applicable to all persons who retired either before, the date of amendment i.e. 20.9.1986 or after the date of amendment. According to the learned Counsel, fixing an artificial date is bad in law in view of the decision in Nakara v. Union of India it and R.S. Marwaha v. Union of India (1987)2. L.L.J., 536 and in T.S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to Government of India . Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the decision in all India. Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India , apart from referring to the decision in Bidhubushan Malik v. Union of India A.I.R. 1983 All 209, which is affirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bidhu Bhushan Malik, A.I.R 1984 S.C. 1177 : (1984)3 S.C.C 93. Learned Counsel also contends that the fixation of 20 years of service for eligibility to get pension is not reasonable, when in government service, persons who have put in ten years of service, are eligible for pro-rata pension, Learned Counsel also contends that fixation of eligibility on different dates is arbitrary. For this proposition, the learned Counsel states that the State Bank of India is an institution in which the Government of India holds major proportion of shares and that the principle laid down in C.V. Raman v. Management of Bank of 'India is applicable to the case of the petitioners. According to the learned Counsel the amendment dated 20.9.1986 was brought in by the State Bank of India by resolution of the Board note in line with the Government of India Rule which prescribed pension for persons who have completed 20 years of continuous service. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that the Government of India has now amended Rule 49 of the Pension Rules so as to enable the persons who have got 10 years of service as qualifying service to obtain pension. It is also pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules had also fallen in line with the Rules made by the Government of India framed under Rule 42(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which also prescribes 10 years period for pension. Learned Counsel also contends that the State Bank of India is a Government of India organisation and as such the parity should be maintained with the Central Government servants. Reliance is also made in B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , in Bharat Petroleum, M.S.P. v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and in Raghunandan v. Union of India and also the decision of this Court M. Ananchu Asar v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others, W.P. No. 6969 of 1990 dated 9.1.1992. The learned Counsel also points out as to what is the rate of interest to be paid to the petitioners and relies upon the decision in State of Kerala v. N. Padmanabhan Nair .
5. Per contra, Mr. Sreekrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Bank refers to para 5 of the affidavit where a detailed claim has been given by the petitioners showing the number of qualifying service etc. and contends that when the petitioners resigned from the bank they were fully conscious of the fact that they are not entitled to the pension and that all of them are better employed after they resigned from the Bank. It is also stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the bank that whatever be the due to the petitioners were paid to them. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that the State Bank of India is constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and that the regulations can be framed under Section 50 of the Act, 1955. It is also stated that Rules and Regulations are made as per the powers vested under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Learned Counsel also refers to Clause 22 of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules which states that a member shall be entitled to a pension under the rules on retiring from the Bank's services from 20.9.1986. According to the learned Counsel, all the petitioners herein, who were retired before 20.9.1986, are governed by the rules which prescribe the qualifying service of 25 years for pension. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that none of the petitioners, except the first petitioner who has completed 20 years and 9 months, completed 20 years of service and that the first petitioner also had resigned in the year 1984 itself. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that none of the petitioners has retired after the date of amendment i.e., 20.9.1986, which amendment prescribes 20 years of service for pension. It is also contended that the Bank and its employees are governed by service Rules, that if the Government Changes the eligibility service into ten years it does not mean that the respondent-Bank also should follow the same and that 20 years of service is necessary for claiming pension. According to the learned Counsel, the decision in Nakara v. Union of India A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 130, will not apply to the case of the petitioners, since in the said decision all of them were pensioners whereas in this case the petitioners were not at all entitled for pension as Rules stood them. In other words, the petitioners were not in service in the year 1986 and that what is given now is a new retirement benefit, and that it will not be applicable to the case of the petitioners. The learned Counsel also contends that the Rules are prospective that the Bank has to obey the Rules framed under the Act and that the petitioners are not entitled to any other benefit.
6. In reply, Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that petitioners are governed by a scheme when they retired, that it has been stated so in para 7 of the counter affidavit and that the question whether the petitioners draw pension or not is irrelevant and that the decision in All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India ,- is applicable to the case of the petitioners also.
7. I have considered the arguments of Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and of Mr. Sreekrishnan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Bank and gone through the materials placed before me. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were officers of the State Bank of India who retired voluntarily, except one after putting service, ranging from 14 years to 20 years, in the respondent Bank. The services of the petitioners can be seen in the tabular column which is to the following effect.
_______________________________________________________________________________ Sl. No. Name Date of Date of Total Service joining resignation Yrs. Mths.
_______________________________________________________________________________
1. V. Kasturi 28.10.63 31.7.1984 20 9
2. P.A. Devendiradas 2.8.65 30.9.1981 16 1
3. M.S. Sambamurthy 4.12.67 31.12.1982 15 -
4. T.E. Krishnakumar 1.6.72 11.7.1986 14 1
5. P.S. Krishnaswami 9.3.70 31.10.1984 14 8
6. B. Jacob 17.4.67 1.11.1982 15 6
7. S. Thiagarajan 12.8.64 30.4.1980 15 8 _______________________________________________________________________________ It is seen from the above, except the first petitioner, all others have put in -less than 25 years of qualifying service and that the first petitioner retired on 31.7.1984. Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 empowers the Central Board to make regulations. Section 50(2) (o) of the Act reads as follows:
...the establishment and maintenance of superannuation pension, provident or other funds for the benefit of the employees of the State Bank or of the dependents of such employees or for the purposes of the State Bank, and the granting of superannuation allowances, annuities and pensions payable out of any such fund....
State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 (D.T.C.S., Order) is framed, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and Chapter IX provides for "terminal benefits". Rule 45 of the Order speaks of 'Provident Fund and Pension" as follows:
...Unless otherwise directed by the competent authority and subject to the provisions of the rules of the State Bank of India Employees' Provident Fund and the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund, every officer shall become a member of each of the said funds, if he is not already a member, and shall subscribe and agree to be bound by the rules of these funds.... Rule 46 of the Order speaks of 'Gratuity' as follows:
(1) An officer who is not governed by the , pension scheme referred to in paragraph 45 shall be eligible for gratuity on
(a) retirement;
(b) death;
(c) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank; or
(d) resignation after completion of ten years of continuous service.
(2) The amount of gratuity payable to an officer shall be one month's pay for every completed year of service, subject to a maximum of 15 months' pay.
Provided that where an officer has completed more than 30 years of service, he shall be eligible by way of gratuity for an additional amount at the rate of one half of a month's pay for each completed year of service beyond 30 years....
Under the State Bank of India Employee's' Pension Funds Rules, Rule 22 reads as follows:
(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;
(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.
(ii) A member who has attained the age of fifty five years or who shall be proved to the satisfaction of the authority empowered to sanction his retirement to be permanently incapacitated by bodily or mental infirmity from further active service (such infirmity not being the result of irregular or intemperate habits) may, at the discretion of that trustees, be granted a proportionate pension,
(iii) A member who has been permitted to retire under Clause 1(c) above shall be entitled to proportionate pension....
As per Rule 22 of the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules, and employees of the Bank who is a member of the fund, is entitled to pension generally after 25 years pensionable service. The Pension Fund Rules were considered by the Board of the Stale Bank of India in the year 1986. The Board seems to have considered the fact that the Government of India introduced in the year 1977 a scheme under which a Government servant who has put in 20 years of qualifying service may voluntarily retire? with proportionate pension and that a similar provision be made in the Bank in line with the Government Employees' Rule for voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years' pensionable service on proportionate pension. After consulting the matter with the Government of India, Banking division, the Board brought an amendment both in the D.T.C.S. Order as well as in the State Bank of India Employees' Pension Fund Rules in order to give effect to the aforesaid provisions of voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of pensionable services. The amendment was given effect from September, 20,1986. Whether the date i.e., 20.9.1986 as fixed by the Board to give effect to the amendment reducing the period from 25 years of pensionable service into 20 years of service is the point to be decided first.
8. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contention that the date so fixed, i.e., 20.9.1986, is an artificial cut-off date and that it is against the principal laid down in Nakara v. Union of India and also in R. S. Marwaha v. Union of India (1987)2 L.L.J. 536 and also in T. S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to Government of India . I have no hesitation to hold that the contention of Mr. N. G. R. Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioners with regard to the first petitioner alone, is to be upheld on the facts and circumstances of the case, since the petitioner has completed 20 years of service on the date of her resignation. It is seen that the first petitioner had retired on 31.7.1984. after completing 20 years and 9 months service. In Nakara v. Union of India , while considering the classification in revised pension on basis of retirement held as follows: (at P. 144) ...But we make it abundantly clear that arrears are not required to be made because to that extent the scheme is prospective. All pensioners whenever they retired would be covered by the liberalised pension scheme, because the scheme is a scheme for payment of pension to a pensioner governed by 1972 Rules. The date of retirement is irrelevant. But the revised scheme would be operative from the date mentioned in the scheme and would bring under its umbrella all existing pensioners and those who retired subsequent to that date. In case of pensioners who retired prior to the specified date, their pension would be computed afresh and would be payable in future commencing from the specified date. No arrears would be payable....
The very same principle has been reiterated in R. S. Marwaha v. Union of India (1987)2 L.L.J. 536. In that case, it was held that the concession was prospective in operation in the sense that the extra benefits can be claimed only after the issue of such an order and that it certainly looks backward and takes into consideration the past event, that is, the period of service under the Central Government for the purpose of computing qualifying service rendered prior to the date of issue of the Government Order. This principles has been reiterated in T. S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to Government of India . However, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that since the Government of India amended service rules entitling the Government servants to be eligible for pension, on completion of ten years of continuous service the State Bank of India Service Rules also to be amended to the very same effect, is not appealing to me. In so far as the petitioners are concerned they are governed by pension scheme, when they entered into the services of the respondent Bank, and the period was reduced to 20 years by the amendment made in the year 1986. None of the petitioners, except the first petitioner herein, had completed twenty years of qualifying service to become eligible for pension. So I do not think that the contention of Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that they should be considered for pension as they have completed ten years of service as the Government of India has amended to the effect that a person who put ten years of service is eligible to the pension. As rightly put by Mr. Sreekrish nan, the learned Counsel for the respondents Bank, all the petitioners are governed by the State Bank of India D.T.C.S. Order and the Rules made thereunder. Fully aware of the fact that they are not entitled to 'Pension', the petitioners have resigned from the services of the respondent Bank and had gone out for some reason or other even before they got the qualifying service of atleast 20 years. So I do not see any justification for other six petitioners in asking for pension on the ground that the Government of India has amended the Rules as ten years. State Bank of India is governed by the D.T.C.S. Order and the Rules made thereunder and in so far as the Rules are not amended, this Court cannot interdict and amend the service Rules so as to make it par with the Rules of the Central Government. It may be true that the State Bank of India is a State coming under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. But surely it is not a Government of India institution. The employees of the State Bank of India cannot be said to be employees of Government of India. If the question is put whether Art 311 will be applicable, the answer will be that it will not apply to the case on hand. That means that the petitioners are not Government employees. As such, I do not see any justification for the petitioners claiming parity with the employees of the Government. It is for the State Bank of India to consider to amend the Rules to be in parity with the Pension Rules of the Government of India. In All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers Association v. Union of India , the Supreme Court has considered the issue of payment of pension and distinguished the decision in Nakara v. Union of India :
...The concept of pension is now well known and has been clarified by Supreme Court time and again. It is not a charity or bounty nor is it-gratuitous payment solely dependent on the whim or sweet will of the employer. It is earned for rendering long service and, is often described as deferred portion of compensation for past service. It is in fact in the nature of a social security plan to provide for the December of life of a superannuated employee. Such social security plans are consistent with the socio-economic requirements of the Constitution when the employer is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution....
So far as the petitioners' request that the qualification period should be amended as ten years of service is concerned, it cannot be done. There was an existing scheme under which the petitioners were not entitled to pension at all, as they retired even before the qualifying service. As such, this Court should take into consideration the financial implications of the scheme and the extent of capacity of the employer to hear the burden. In this case, the petitioner-employees had no vested right on the date of their retirement and as such the employer can restrict the same to certain retirees. Though it is an existing scheme as contended by Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, even under the existing scheme, except the first petitioner, other six petitioners are not entitled to pension as they have not put for the qualifying service for claiming 'pension' When they have not put forth the period of qualifying service claiming for 'pension' how the other six petitioners' except the first petitioner herein., I do not see how they can claim pension on the basis of the Government Pension Rules, either Central Government or the State Government. As such, I am of the view that the other six petitioners' request claiming 'pension' cannot be acceded to. The view I take, I think that it is not necessary to refer to all other decisions referred to by Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel for the petitioners to support the contentions. As such, the declaration as prayed for in the writ petition cannot be granted. To suit the occasion, moulding the relief as asked for, I direct the respondent Bank to consider the case of the first petitioner alone for the payment of pension, taking into consideration the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above. I do hope that the respondent Bank will pay the interest as per the principle laid down in State of Kerala v. N. Padmanabhan Nair . This writ petition shall stand partly allowed as stated above. In other respects, with required to other six petitioners the writ petition shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.