K.G. Seshadri v. Trustees of State Bank of India 2026 INSC 333 -Pension Fund Rules
State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955
State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955 -In this case, Supreme Court held that the appellant cannot be said to be eligible for pension under the Pension Fund Rules considering that he has not completed 20 years of service nor had attained the age of 50 years, hence, making him ineligible under Rule 22(i)(a). Also, the appellant’s case cannot be said to fall under Rule 22(i)(c) since the appellant was never granted VRS, instead his services were declared to have been voluntary abandoned.
Case Info
Basic Case Details
Case name: K.G. Seshadri v. The Trustees of State Bank of India and Another
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 333
Court & jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Coram:
- Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
- Justice N.V. Anjaria
Judgment date: 08 April 2026 (New Delhi)
Caselaws and Citations Referred
- Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India & Others v. Radhey Shyam Pandey, 2020 (6) SCC 438
- Rugmini Ganesh w/o Ganesh Raman Iyer v. State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chairperson, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 3884
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak & Another, (1995) 1 SCC 235
- Arikaravula Sanyasi Raju v. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam (A.P.) & Others, (1997) 1 SCC 256
Statutes / Rules Referred
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 33C(2)
- State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955, in particular:
- Rule 7
- Rule 20
- Rule 21 (by reference: “save as provided in Rule 21”)
- Rule 22, including sub‑rules 22(i)(a), 22(i)(b), 22(i)(c) and 22(i)(d)
Three‑Sentence Brief Summary
The Supreme Court considered whether K.G. Seshadri, a clerk of SBI whose services were treated as voluntarily abandoned from 12.12.1998, was entitled to pension under the SBI Employees’ Pension Fund Rules. Interpreting Rules 7, 20 and 22, the Court held that his pensionable service fell short of 20 years and that he had also not attained the requisite age of 50 years, so he did not qualify under Rule 22(i)(a), nor could he invoke Rule 22(i)(c) because his case was one of voluntary abandonment, not voluntary retirement under a VRS. Proceeding on merits despite earlier dismissals on the technical ground of non‑maintainability under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, the Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that no pensionary right had accrued.
