The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by former State Bank of India employee K.G. Seshadri, holding that voluntary abandonment of service cannot be treated as voluntary retirement for the purpose of claiming pension benefits.
The bench Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria ruled that the appellant failed to meet the eligibility criteria under the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955, thereby disentitling him from pension.
The appellant was appointed as a clerk with the State Bank of India and confirmed in service in February 1979. He later left India in 1989 and remained absent without authorization for an extended period. Upon his return in 2004, he sought reinstatement, which was denied by the bank. In 2008, the bank formally declared that he had voluntarily retired from service.
Challenging this decision, the appellant initiated multiple legal proceedings, including writ petitions before the Madras High Court and a claim before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, his claims were consistently rejected at all levels, leading to the present appeal before the apex court.
The central question before the Court was whether the appellant was entitled to pension under Rule 22 of the Pension Fund Rules, particularly under Rule 22(i)(c), which allows pension after 20 years of service upon voluntary retirement irrespective of age.
The Court clarified that proceedings under Section 33C(2) are akin to execution proceedings and can only be invoked where a “pre-existing right” exists. In this case, since the very entitlement to pension was disputed, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction.
However, the Supreme Court proceeded to examine the matter on merits.
It found that the appellant had not completed the required 20 years of qualifying service. While he claimed over 20 years of service, the Court noted that pensionable service must be calculated from the date of confirmation, not initial appointment. On this basis, his total service fell short at approximately 19 years and 9 months.
A crucial finding of the Court was that the appellant’s case did not involve voluntary retirement but voluntary abandonment of service. The Court observed that he remained absent without authorization for nearly a year despite repeated notices from the bank, leading to termination under service rules.
Rejecting the appellant’s reliance on precedents equating voluntary cessation with retirement, the Court held that such rulings apply only where retirement is undisputed. In the present case, the very nature of exit from service was contested and established as abandonment.
The Court further held that the appellant did not qualify under Rule 22(i)(a) either, as he had neither completed 20 years of service nor attained the minimum age of 50 years at the time of cessation.
Even the argument that probationary service should be included was rejected as immaterial, since the age requirement remained unfulfilled.
Concluding that the appellant failed to meet the essential conditions under the Pension Fund Rules and that his exit from service amounted to abandonment rather than retirement, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Details
Case Title: K.G. Seshadri Versus The Trustees Of State Bank Of India And Another
Citation: JURISHOUR-676-SC-2026
Case No.: S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO.12462 OF 2022
Date: 08/04/2026
