- (1.) THE short facts leading to the writ appeal are as follows :
(2.) THE first respondent-Bank was constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (Act 23 of 1955 ). The said Act came into force on 1st July 1955. According to sub-section (3) of Section of 4 the said Act the service conditions of the employees of the Imperial Bank of India were to be the same as on 1st July 1955. It was on that date the Imperial Bank of India was taken over by the State Bank of India. The terms and conditions of service were duly altered by the State Bank of India. The appellant joined the services of the first respondent-Bank as Law Officer on a contractual basis on terms and conditions contained in the offer of appointment dated 24th October 1977. On 2nd February 1978 an order of appointment was issued in and by which he was appointed for a period of three years with option to the Bank to absorb him as a Law Officer on long term basis on satisfactory completion of the initial employment for a period of three years. When the appellant joined the State Bank of India, viz. the first respondent-Bank, the service conditions were governed by the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules 1975 (These Rule will hereinafter be referred to as the 'service Rules' ). Rule 20 provided for retirement of an employee of the Bank which we will deal in detail in the later part of our judgment. In exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 43 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955, the first respondent-bank determined the terms and conditions of service of Officers. The revised service conditions came into force on 1st October 1979. This is called the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Services) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DTCS Order' ). Paragraph 19 of the said order, more or less similar to Service Rule 20, talks of age of retirement. Inter-alia it provided that 58 years will be the age of retirement. Even beyond this age of 58 years, or completion of 30 years of service, the service could be extended by the competent authority at its discretion if deemed desirable in the interests of the Bank. A meeting was held between the Management of the first respondent-Bank and All India State Bank Officers' Federation on 22nd November, 1979. One of the points that came up for discussion was the grant of extension beyond the age of 58 years. The Federation sought clarification on this point which is embodied in paragraph 19 of the Minutes of the Meeting, which is to be following effect : "the present practice regarding grant of extension beyond the age of 58 will be followed only in respect of employees recruited either as workmen or officers before the 19th July 1969. " A Note was annexed to the Minutes of the Meeting of 22nd November, 1979. On 31st December, 1979, the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, wrote to the State Bank of India Officers' Federation concerning this as under : "while the provisions herein are substantially the same as in erstwhile Rule 20, it has been decided that the existing practice of granting extension beyond the age of 58 will continue only in respect of employees who joined the service either as workmen or as Officers before the 19th July 1969. This should be carefully diarised and carried over suitably to ensure that this factor is not overlooked at the time when the cases of employees who joined on-or after 19th July 1969 come up for consideration. Your attention is also invited to the explanation appended to this paragraph of the order. We clarify that in case an Officer's computable service for the purpose commences on the first day of a month or his date of birth is the first day of a month, he will complete the stipulated service or age of retirement on the last day of the month previous to the month and will stand retired as from the close of business on that date. " 23rd February 1984, the Central Board of the first respondent-Bank at its meeting introduced a new proviso to sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 19 of the DTCS Order which was to the following effect : "provided further that an Officer who had joined the service of the Bank either as an Officer or otherwise on or after the 19th July 1969 and attained the age of 58 years shall not be granted any further extension of service" In so far as it is a common case that the appellant joined only after 19th July, 1969 the services of the first respondent-Bank he is not to get the benefit of extention altogether. It is the validity of this second proviso which was challenged before the learned single Judge, Bakthavatsalam, J. in W. P. 10892 of 1987. The prayer in the writ petition was for a declaration that the second proviso of sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 19 of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the "fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India". It was inter-alia contended that there was no nexus between the date 19th July, 1969 and the object sought to be achieved and therefore by such a fanciful date, the right of the appellant to be considered for extension could not be deprived. Therefore, there is violation of Article 14 in so far as the proviso makes an invidious distinction between Officers who joined the service prior to 19th July, 1969 and after 19th July, 1969.
(3.) IN opposition to this, it was argued on behalf of the Bank that having regard to the recommendations of the Pillai Committee and having regard to the fact that a uniform policy has to be followed with regard to all Nationalized Banks, the date 19th July, 1969 came to be chosen. That was taken as the cut-off date, because it was on that date the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Central Act 5 of 1970) came into force. Therefore, there was nothing fanciful about it. Further, if under Paragraph 19 of the DTCS Order, a discretion was conferred on the authority to grant or not to grant extension of service, there could not be a case of right, much less fundamental right to be considered for grant of extension. In any event, if the matter were to rest purely on a contract, the remedy will be for the breach of such contract, not by way of a writ petition. M. K. Chubby Raj vs. State Bank of India (05. 04. 1989 -MADHC) Page 5 of 18 The learned single judge upheld the contentions of the firstrespondent-Bank that 19th July, 1969 was not an arbitrary date. Further there was no fundamental right, or any right, for the appellant to get extension, or even to be considered. In this view, he thought it was unnecessary to decide whether the right is one of contractual nature, and left open the question. Hence the appeal by the appellant.;