- (1.) HEARD Sri S.K.Kalia, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Sri N.K.Seth assisted by Sri G.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents -Bank.
(2.) THESE are the three writ petitions which involve the common question of law and facts and, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment and order. The petitioners had sought voluntary retirement from the service of the State Bank of India under the scheme known as 'SBI Voluntary Retirement Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme'), who were, though permitted voluntary retirement but the promotions granted to the petitioners have been withdrawn. The orders accepting the voluntary retirement were passed on different dates, namely; in the case of P.K. Kalia on 28.3.2001 and that of Syed Ejaz Haider on 23.3.2001 and in the case of U.C.Sanghi on 13.3.2001, effective from 31.3.2001. The promotion was withdrawn in the case of P.K.Kalia on the date when his voluntary retirement was accepted i.e. 28.3.2001 and in the case of Syed Ejaz Haider the promotion was withdrawn w.e.f. 23.3.2001 and in the case of U.C. Sanghi the promotion was withdrawn from 31.3.2001. At the time of voluntary retirement P.K.Kalia and Syed Ejaz Haider were working in MMG Scale -II whereas U.C.Sanghi was working as an officer belonging to SMG Scale -IV. As a result of withdrawal of the promotions, P.K.Kalia and Syed Ejaz Haider stand reverted in JMGS -I and U.C.Sanghi in MMGS -II and consequently their perks and emoluments were also paid as per the reverted position. When these writ petitions were filed, a Division Bench of this Court had passed an interim order by means of which the orders withdrawing the promotions were stayed, but learned counsel for the petitioners say that despite the aforesaid interim orders, the benefit of the same has not been extended to the petitioners and the position remains as it was on the date of passing of the orders of withdrawal of the promotions. The sole question which requires consideration in the matter is as follows: Whether the promotions of the petitioners could have been withdrawn while accepting their request for voluntary retirement under the 'SBI Voluntary Retirement Scheme' merely because they have not completed two years rural or three years semi -urban assignment (either wholly or partly), during their service tenure though no fault can be attributed to them for not undergoing these postings?
(3.) FOR deciding the controversy, we would have a glance of the scheme of voluntary retirement introduced by the Bank. The State Bank of India floated a scheme for voluntary retirement in December 30, 2000. This scheme was in force from 15.1.2001 till 31st January, 2001 (inclusive of both days) with an option for the Bank to close early/extend the date without assigning any reason. The eligibility clause under 'SBI Voluntary Retirement Scheme' provided as follows: "ELIGIBILITY: The Scheme will be open to all permanent employees of the Bank, except those specifically mentioned as 'ineligible', who have put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31st December 2000. Age will be reckoned on the basis of the date of birth as entered in service record." Since we are not concerned with the clause 'ineligible', therefore, we would not mention the clause which will make an officer 'ineligible' for seeking voluntary retirement. The scheme also provided the benefits which occur to an officer who opts for voluntary retirement such as ex -gratia gratuity, provident fund etc. The Bank was given sole discretion as to the acceptance or the rejection of the request for retirement under the scheme depending upon the requirements of the Bank. Clause 7. of the scheme reads as under: "7.OTHER FEATURES: The Bank intends to control the outflow according to its requirements. Towards this end, the Bank retains the discretion to limit the number of employees allowed to retire in each category of staff viz. officer/clerical -cash/subordinate, to be covered under SBIVRS. As such the Bank will have the sole discretion as to the acceptance or the rejection of the request for retirement under SBIVRS depending upon the requirements of the Bank. FOR the purpose of exercising discretion in this regard, category wise lists of eligible applicants would be prepared in descending order of their age and applications of employees coming in higher age groups above cut -off age would be accepted; the cut off age in each category will of course depend upon the acceptable number of employees who can be permitted to retire. No voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have come into effect unless the decision of the Competent Authority has been communicated in writing." Clause 8 (viii) provides that in case of disputes as to the interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the decision of the Bank shall be final and binding on all the parties concerned. Clause 8(ix) provides that the Bank reserves the right to modify, amend or cancel any or all of the aforesaid clauses and to give effect thereto from any dates it may deem fit." The aforesaid scheme giving criteria of eligibility for seeking voluntary retirement only requires that a person should be permanent employee of the Bank except those who fall within the definition of 'ineligible' under the scheme itself, he should have put in 15 years of service or have completed 40 years of age as on 31.12.2000. In case any employee fulfills the eligibility conditions, he was entitled to seek voluntary retirement. However, it appears that in pursuance of the power conferred under Clause 8 (ix) of the scheme, the Bank issued a circular on 2.1.2001 wherein it laid down that if an officer, who has not completed the mandatory rural or semi -urban assignment (either wholly or partly), submits an application for retirement under the Scheme, his request would be subject to the provisions contained in circular No. CDO/PM/CIR/25 dated 11.6.1999. Thus, in case an officer from this category applies for retirement under the SBIVRS, his promotion would stand withdrawn. Again a circular note was issued on 8.1.2001 clarifying the scheme of voluntary retirement dated 30.12.2000, wherein it was provided as under: If an officer, who has not completed the mandatory rural or semi -urban assignment (either wholly or partly) submits an application for retirement under SBIVRS, his request would be subject to the provisions contained in Staff Circular No. CDO/PM/1 of 1999 dated 7.8.99. Thus, in case of an officer from this category applying for retirement under SBIVRS before approving his case, his promotions would stand withdrawn." This circular dated 8.1.2001 was issued by the State Bank of India, Personnel & HRD Dept., Local Head Office, Lucknow and contains the same provisions/conditions as were mentioned in the circular letter dated 2.1.2001. The circular dated 11.6.1999, a copy of which is placed on record as Annexure C -5 to the counter affidavit in W.P.No. 657 (S/S) of 2001, speaks of the same conditions in Para 3(vii), which reads as under: "3.(vii) if an officer opts for voluntary retirement/resignation, the Bank would not permit such retirement/resignation unless he/she either completes the mandatory R/SU assignment or makes a request in writing to withdraw his/her promotion(s) as he/she cannot complete R/SU assignment and be retired. In case the officer applies for retirement/resigns, without making a request in writing for withdrawal of promotion(s), the Bank may withdraw his/her promotion(s) based on the undertaking already given and thereafter permit the officer to retire/resign.";