S. B. Majmudar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal. The short question involved in this appeal is:whether the appellant original writ petitioner before the High Court was entitled to get the benefit of pension scheme available to the State Bank employees under the State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules (for short the Rules). The learned single Judge of the High Court held that the appellant was so entitled. The Division Bench set aside the said decision and rejected the claim of the appellant. In order to highlight the grievance of the appellant in this appeal, it is necessary to note bakground skeletal facts. BACKGROUND SKELETAL FACTS:
(3.) The appellant joined the respondent State Bank of India as an officer on 22-10-1963. In the year 1979 the respondent Bank framed the pension scheme under Regulation 45 of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order of 1979. The State Bank of India also had framed State Bank of India Employees Pension Fund Rules in exercise of powers conferred by Section 50 of the State Bank of India Act. The appellant became a member of the said Fund as required of him while joining the service of the Bank. He resigned from the Bank service on 31st July, 1984. By that time he had completed 20 years and 9 months of pensionable service. At the time of his resignation which was treated as voluntary retirement, he was not entitled to get pension under the aforesiad Rules as the eligibility requirement for earning pension as per Rule 22(1)(c) of the said Rules was to the effect that the employee should have retired from Bank service after 25 years of pensionable service. However, on account of various representations from the Bank employees the said eligibility condition was relaxed with effect from 20th September, 1986 whereby the original clause (c) Rule 22(1) was replaced by another clause (c) which provided that an employee retiring after completion of 20 years of pensionable service irrespective of the age could get benefit of the pension scheme by his request in writing. The appellant's contention before the respondent authorities was that though he had resigned on 31st July, 1984, as he had already completed 20 years of pensionable service by that time the benefit of the amended provision of Clause (c) of Rule 22(1) of the Rules could be available to him at least prospectively from 20th September, 1986 i.e. from the date on which amended provision came into force. The said request was rejected by the respondent Bank authorities on the ground that the said amended provision which introduced a new pension scheme for covering the additional class of retiring employees on completion of 20 years of pensionable service, instead of earlier requirement of 25 years of pensionable service, could not retrospectively apply in the case of the appellant who had resigned and ceased to be a Bank employee more than two years prior to coming into force of this amended pension scheme. The appellant thereafter carried the matter by way of a writ in the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition, following the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 , held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of amended provisions of Rule 22(1)(c) from the date of coming into operation of the said provision as he was a member of the employees pension fund at the time when he ceased to be a Bank employee and he had already completed the requisite 20 years of pensionable service by that time. The Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal moved by the respondent Bank took a contrary view and came to the conclusion that the amended provision of the rule introduced a new scheme for covering entirely a distinct class of erstwhile employees who had retired from Bank service and the said provision could not have any retrospective effect and could not cover the case of the appellant who had retired more than two years prior to the coming into force of the amended scheme of pension. That is how the appellant is before us in these proceedings. RIVAL CONTENTIONS:;