Sabina, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the temporary service rendered by him with the bank from 16.1.1976 to 10.8.1981 for the purposes of retiral benefits.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the temporary service rendered by the petitioner before he was appointed on permanent basis with the bank was liable to be taken in consideration for pensionary benefits. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had earned due increments while he served the respondent bank on temporary basis. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that in view of Regulation 15 of Chapter IV of Regulations 1995, the service rendered by the petitioner for pensionary benefits was liable to commence from the date he was appointed on permanent basis. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Gulel Ram vs. State Bank of India and others : 2007 (1) SLR 808, wherein, it was held as under: - As noticed above, there is clear and categorical stipulation in Rule 7(a) of the Rules that every permanent employee in the service of the SBI who is entitled to pension benefits under the terms and conditions of his service shall become a member of the Fund from the date from which he is confirmed in the service of the Bank. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that their services prior to the dates of their respective confirmation shall be counted for the purpose of pensionable service.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY , petitioner had worked on temporary basis from 16.1.1976 to 10.8.1981. Petitioner was appointed with respondent -bank on permanent basis w.e.f. 11.8.1981. Petitioner was granted increments during the period of his temporary service. However, the period of temporary service rendered by the petitioner has not been rightly considered by the respondent bank for pensionary benefits.;