MADAN CHANDRA BRAHMA Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(GAU)-1994-11-12
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on November 14,1994

MADAN CH.BRAHMA,CENTRAL BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION GUWAHATI Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,CENTRAL IBANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The above mentioned writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners against the order of superannuation by the respondents at the age of 58 years and also for non correction of the date of birth of the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1549/92. As similar points have been involved for decision, both the writ petitions are taken together for disposal.
(2.)The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 1549/92 was appointed as an Assistant temporarily with effect from 9.6.69 by the General Manager, Gauhati Bank Limited by letter dated 26.6.69 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) and subsequently promoted as Accountant Grade II with effect from 1.7.75 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). The Gauhati Bank Limited was merged with the Purbanchal Bank Limited on and from 1.8.75 and that petitioner was absorbed in the Purbanchal Bank as Officer in the rank of Accountant in which post he continued till the Purbanchal Bank was merged with the respondent Central Bank of India by notification No. 17/7/89-B.O.III(i) dated 28.8.90 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India in pursuance of Section 45(7) of the Banking Regulation Act 1949 with effect from 29.8.90 (Annexure- C to the writ petition). By the above mentioned notification the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sec 45(7) of the Act sanctioned the scheme for amalgamation of the Purbanchal Bank Limited with the Central Bank of India. The contention of the petitioner is that under Clause 10 of the said scheme (Annexure-D to the writ petition) all the employees of the transferor bank (the Purbanchal Bank Limited) shall continue in service and be deemed to have been appointed by the transferee bank (the Central Bank of India) at the same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to such employees immediately before the close of business on 14.7.90. Under clause 11 the transferee bank shall before a period of 3 years from 28.8.90 grant to the employees of the transferor bank, the same terms and conditions of service as are applicable to the employees of the corresponding bank or status of the: transferee bank. In terms of the powers sanctioned under clause 11 of the said scheme (Annexure-D to the .writ petition) the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of India has in its meeting held on 22.4.91 given the approval in the matter of bringing parity of service conditions of officer employees of the Central Bank of India. The Board decided that the officer employees of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank shall with effect from-1.4.91 be governed by the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979 (for short the Regulation), subject to certain exceptions as provided in the circular dated 6.5.91 which was forwarded by the Regional Manager, Purbanchal Region vide order dated 15.5.91 (Annexure-E & F respectively to the writ petition). The aforesaid Regulation have been issued by the Board of Directors of the Central Bank of India in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 19 read with Sec 129 (2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970. The Rule 12 under Regulation 19 of the said Regulation reads as follows :
"1.2 An officer employee of the Bank recruited prior to 19th July 1969 but promoted as an officer on or after 19th July 1969 shall retire on completion of 60 years of age."
Under this provision, which is applicable to the writ petitioner, it is contended, on the basis of the date of birth of the petitioner, i.e., 1.9.1934 the date of retirement of the petitioner in terms of the said Regulation is 1.9.94.
(3.)Further contention of the petitioner is that on or about 3rd week of June, 1992 he came to know that there was a mistake in recording the date of birth of the petitioner in the seniority list of officers as on 1.1.92. His date of birth was shown in the said list to be 1.8.34 in place of 1.9.34, therefore, immediately on 20.6.92 he submitted a representation to the Chief Officer (PRS) of the Zonal Office of the Bank for necessary correction of the date of birth along with his Matriculation Certificate to prove his date of birth. It is alleged that the said representation was not disposed and instead he was served with a letter (Annexure-I to the writ: petition) dated 17.7.92 by the Chief Officer (PRS) informing him that he would reach the age of superannuation on 1.8.92 and therefore as per Bank's rule, the petitioner would be regarded as retired from bank service from 31.7.92 after the day's work. Against this the petitioner submitted a representation on 23.7.92 (Annexure-J to the writ petition) before the Zonal Managen, Gauhati Zone pointing out the mistake in recording the date of birth. In the same petition he asserted that in terms of the Regulation he cannot be retired before completion of 60 years of age. In this representation also a copy of the school certificate dated 21.7.92 was attached in support of his claim. As, it is alleged, no communication has been obtained from the authority concerned the petitioner has to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court against the letter dated 17.7.92 (Annexure-I to the writ petition).


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.