Sabina, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the chargesheet dated 7.5.2007 (Annexure P -3) and orders dated 18.6.2007 (Annexure P -4), 11.8.2007 (Annexure P -5), 11.3.2008 (Annexure P -7) and 13.2.2014 (Annexure P -10). Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the respondent bank as clerk -cum -typist on 27.8.1984. Petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2001. Wife of the petitioner was suffering from mental disorder since the year 200S and the petitioner had to take her for treatment to Sri Ganganagar. Petitioner had to take care of his two minor children and due to his prevailing family circumstances, he sought voluntary retirement on 16.2.2007. The said request was neither accepted nor denied and a chargesheet was issued against the petitioner on 7.5.2007 on the allegation that he had remained absent from duty. Punishment order was passed on 18.6.2007. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. Petitioner sent reminders to respondent No. 2 for taking action on his application seeking voluntary retirement on 26.7.2007. Although, gratuity etc. of the petitioner was released to him on 11.3.2008 but his pension was not released to him. Petitioner approached this Court and petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to move a fresh representation to the respondents with fresh particulars. The said representation was declined vide order dated 13.2.2014. Hence, the present petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was entitled to seek voluntary retirement as he had completed 20 years of service and his wife was suffering from mental disorder. Rule 22 of State Bank of India Pension Fund Rules reads as under: - - "Rule 22 (i)(c) of SBI Pension Fund Rules reads as under: - - "Rule 22. A member of the State Bank of India Employees Pension fund shall be entitled for pension under rule 22 (i) while retiring from bank's service: "a) xx b) xx c) After having completed 20 years of 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. d) xx"
(3.) THUS , as per the above rule, petitioner could get pension only if he had completed 20 years of service and could satisfy the competent authority that he was incapacitated for active service by leading medical certificate in this regard. From the perusal of the rule, it is clear that pension can be released to an employee, who has completed 20 years of service and is medically incapacitated. In the present case, it is the wife of the petitioner, who was allegedly suffering from mental disorder. Hence, competent authority rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not get benefit of Rule 22(1)(c) of the Rules. Further the petitioner had although, sought voluntary retirement but the said request of the petitioner was not allowed by the department. Rather the petitioner was chargesheeted on account of his absence from duty. A perusal of chargesheet (Annexure P -3) reveals that the petitioner had remained absent for 106 days up to 12.2.2007. Petitioner submitted his reply to the said chargesheet and vide order dated 18.6.2007 (Annexure P -4), petitioner was ordered to be brought down to lower stage in the scale of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 11.8.2007 (Annexure P -5). Thereafter, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 17758 of 2012 and the same was disposed of by this Court by passing the following order: - - "In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application along with all supporting material (which existed on the date on which he sought voluntary retirement) within a period of four weeks from today and the competent authority is directed to take a decision thereon by passing a speaking order within a period of two months thereafter, with the clarification that in case the claim of the petitioner is accepted, the petitioner would be entitled for pension only from the date of the decision." In pursuance to the said order, representation moved by the petitioner was declined vide order dated 13.2.2014 (Annexure P -10). Case of the petitioner for grant of pension was rightly declined by the bank as although, petitioner as completed 20 years of service but had not attained the age of 50 years. So far as Rule 22(1)(c) is concerned, the case of the petitioner did not fall within the purview of the said rule. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.;