Punjab & Haryana HC: SBI Ordered to Release Pensionary Benefits, Bank Cannot Deny Pension by Restricting Service to Age 58 When Retirement Extended to 60

Case Name: State Bank of India v. Dhanpat Singh (since deceased) through LRs & Ors.
Date of Judgment: August 26, 2025
Citation: LPA No. 1821 of 2025 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohit Kapoor

Held: The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by SBI and upheld the Single Judge’s order directing the Bank to compute and release pensionary benefits to the petitioner. It held that once the petitioner had been granted extension of service up to 60 years under the Bank’s policy and had been a member of the Pension Fund since his initial appointment, his entire service till retirement must be counted. The Bank could not limit pensionable service only up to the age of 58 years. Reading the amended Pension Fund Rules harmoniously, the Court concluded that the petitioner completed the requisite 10 years of service and was entitled to pension. Arguments restricting service reckoning to confirmation date or to age 58 were rejected .

Summary: The petitioner was appointed as Guard on 14.12.1989, confirmed on 14.06.1990, and superannuated on 31.05.2000 at age 60 following SBI’s decision to extend retirement age from 58 to 60. His pension claim was rejected on 14.02.2000 on the ground that he had completed only 7 years 10 months and 21 days of pensionable service till age 58, falling short of the 10-year requirement. The Single Judge allowed his writ petition, holding that he was a Pension Fund member from initial appointment and entitled to count his entire service till retirement. On appeal, SBI argued that pension rules required reckoning only till 58 and from confirmation date, and that appointment at age 49 violated the then 38-year entry age limit. The Division Bench rejected these contentions, noting that amendments to Rules 20 and 22 in 1997 and 2001 permitted reckoning of service up to retirement age of 60 with 10 years’ service. It held that once extension was granted and membership from appointment was undisputed, the Bank could not deny benefits .

Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding SBI bound to release pensionary benefits with interest, as directed by the Single Judge, and rejecting the Bank’s restrictive interpretation of Pension Fund Rules .