Pradeep Kant, K.S.Rakhra, JJ. - (1.) These are the two writ petitions, which are being decided by this common order. Writ Petition No. 8834 (SB) of 1989 has been filed by the petitioner claiming promotion on the post of Middle Management Grade Scale (hereinafter referred to as M.M.G.S.) IIIrd and IVth and salary for the period during which he remained under suspension whereas Writ Petition No. 5087 (SB) of 1992 has been filed challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 30.5.1992.
(2.) The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner, an employee of State Bank of India was considered for promotion for M.M.G.S. III, while working as M.M.G.S. II, on 28.12.1983 with effect from 1.8.1981 and he was found fit for promotion with effect from 1.8.1981. However, before the promotion orders could be issued, the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide order dated 25.2.1984. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 21.4.1987 on 15.5.1987, Reply to the charge- sheet was submitted on 8.7.1987. The enquiry thus remained pending and during the pendency of the enquiry, the suspension order was revoked, vide order dated 9.12.1988. It was thereafter that Writ Petition No. 8834 (SB) of 1989 was filed when the petitioner's request for giving him promotion on the post of M.M.G.S. III and payment of full salary was not conceded by the Bank. In this writ petition, earlier an interim order was passed allowing the Bank to continue with the enquiry proceedings but not to take any final decision in the matter. This interim order was lately vacated on his own application of the petitioner and liberty was given to the Bank for passing final orders. As a consequence of the aforesaid enquiry, a decision was taken and the petitioner was ordered to be compulsorily retired. This order became the subject-matter of the subsequent writ petition. In this writ petition also in interim order was passed staying the order of compulsory retirement, which allowed the petitioner to continue in service and we are informed that the petitioner reached the age of superannuation during the subsistence of the aforesaid interim order and has thus retired on 30.6.1997. Sri P. N. Mathur, learned senior advocate, also informs that the petitioner has been paid all his post rettral dues and salary keeping in mind the interim order of stay passed by this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Anupam Mehrotra for making out a case for petitioner's promotion on the basis of the recommendation made by the D.P.C. as far back as on 28.12.1983, submitted that withholding of promotion merely on the basis of the suspension order dated 25.2.1984 was palpably erroneous, as there was no material against him on the date when the petitioner was to be granted promotion nor any enquiry was pending nor was in contemplation. In support of his submission, he relies upon the fact that the suspension order was itself revoked by the bank on 9.12.1988, which shows that suspension order was void and non est. Further submission is that under the State Bank of India Service Regulations, suspension order could only be revoked, if it is found unjustifiable and, therefore, there is presumption that they found the suspension of the petitioner unjustifiable which would entail the petitioner of consequence of promotion, as he was erroneously suspended without there being any material. The order dated 9,12.1988 revoking the suspension order does not disclose any reason but the learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the enquiry was taking long time and, therefore, the order of suspension was revoked but the enquiry was continued. The petitioner was suspended for charges relating to the period 1978-79 upto 1981.;