N N PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1988-12-16
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on December 29,1988

N.N.PATEL Appellant
VERSUS
REGIONAL MANAGER,STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR,NEW DELHI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR AND ORS. V. JAG MOHAN LAL [FOLLOWED]


JUDGEMENT

M.B.SHAH - (1.)Petitioner who was an officer of the state Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has filed this petition praying that the order refusing extension in service to the petitioner passed by the respondent Bank be quashed and set aside. With regard to his prayer that the order of compulsory retirement be quashed and set aside learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner agrees that the petitioner was not compulsorily retired but extension in service wag not given to him
(2.)In any view no direction can be given to the Bank for extending the services of the petitioner. It is the sole discretion of the employer State or otherwise. This point is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur & Ors. v. Jag Mohan Lal reported in 1988 (2) Bank CLR 529. Hence there is no substance in this petition.
(3.)The Supreme Court has held that an employee has no right to remain in service beyond the age of superannuation and therefore he cannot claim extension as a matter of right. The Supreme Court has also considered proviso to Regulation 19(1) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations 1979 and held as under;
"10 Look at the language of proviso and the purpose underlying. The Bank may in its discretion extend the service of any officer. On what ground ? For what purpose ? That has been also made clear in the proviso itself. It states should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank. The solo purPose of giving extortion of service is therefore to promote the interest of the Bank and not to confer any benefit on the retiring officers. Incidentally the extension may benefit retired officials. But it is in correct to state that it is a conferment of benefit or privilege on officers. The officers upon attaining the age of superaunuation or putting the required number of years of service do not earn that benefit or privilege. The High Court has completely misunderstood the nature of right and purpose of the proviso. The proviso preserves discretion to the Bank. It is a discretion available with every employer every management State or otherwise. If the Bank considers that the service of en officer is desirable in the interest of the Bank it may allow him to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation. If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is not required beyond superannuation it is an end of the matter. It is no reflection on the officer. It carries no stigma.

11 The Bank however is required to consider the eases of individual officers with due regard to (i) continued utility; (ii) good health; and (iii) integrity beyond reproach of the officer. If the officer lacks one or the other the Bank is not bound to give him extension of service. In this case the Bank has shown to the High Court that the case of respondent was considered and he did not fit in the said guidelines. The High Court does not sit in an appeal against that decision. The High Court under Art. 226 cannot review that decision.

12 It was however argued for the respondent that the Bank falls within the concept of State for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights. The Bank. therefore cannot extend the service of some and reject the case of other similarly situated. The concept of Art. 14 of the Constitution is relied upon. The argument in our opinion proceeds on a wrong premises".

;


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