Facts: The appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the State Bank of India in August 1978 and confirmed in February 1979. He left for abroad in 1989 and remained unauthorizedly absent. In 1998, after he failed to respond to notices to report for work, the Bank declared that he had voluntarily abandoned his services. Upon his return to India in 2004, he requested to rejoin, which was denied. Subsequently, in 2008, the Bank issued a letter stating he had been voluntarily retired, though later the Bank clarified this was a case of voluntary abandonment/cessation of service. The appellant sought pensionary benefits, claiming he had completed over 20 years of service and was entitled to pension under the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955.Procedural Posture: The appellant first approached the High Court, which directed him to the Labour Court. The Labour Court dismissed his claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as there was no pre-existing right. This was upheld by a Single Judge and subsequently by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The appellant then filed the present Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court.Issue: Whether the appellant is entitled to pensionary benefits under the State Bank of India Employees’ Pension Fund Rules, 1955, and whether the service period for pension is reckoned from the date of appointment or the date of confirmation.Holding: No, the appellant is not entitled to pension. The Court held that for pension purposes, service is reckoned from the date of confirmation and admission to the fund.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that under Rule 7 and Rule 20 of the Pension Fund Rules, pensionable service is reckoned from the date of confirmation. Calculating from February 1979 to December 1998, the appellant completed only 19 years, 9 months, and 25 days, falling short of the mandatory 20-year requirement. Furthermore, Rule 22(i)(c) was inapplicable because the appellant had not obtained voluntary retirement but was declared to have voluntarily abandoned service. Even under Rule 22(i)(a), he was ineligible as he had neither completed 20 years of service nor attained the requisite age of 50 years at the time of cessation of service.