Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Pushkar Baghel, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Vinayak Saxena holding brief for Sri J. N. Mathur, learned Counsel appearing for Bank of Baroda (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and other opposite parties.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that Petitioner No. 1 Debashish Ghosh had sought voluntary retirement under the scheme for appointment of dependents of employees who retire on medical ground. This scheme was framed on 23.1.1987 under the Bank of Baroda (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979. He was declared physically infirm by the Medical Board. He sought voluntary retirement on medical ground on 12.2.1997 to enable his son to be appointed on an appropriate post in the Bank under the said scheme. His voluntary retirement was accepted on 9.10.1997. He applied for the appointment of his son Buton Ghosh, Petitioner No. 2 and necessary formalities in this regard were completed by 6.4.1998, but the matter remained pending due to inaction and lethargy on the part of the opposite parties. However, to the utter surprise of the Petitioners, after more than three years, their application was rejected vide impugned order dated 2.8.2001 and the representation/ appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the Managing Director of the Bank vide order dated 21/23.9.2002. Sri Pushkar Baghel, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has led stress on the fact that at the time of acceptance of voluntary retirement by Petitioner No. 1 and submission of application for his son's appointment, the afore -mentioned scheme of 23.1.1987 was in vogue. His application was to be scrutinized and decision was to be taken in the light of the said scheme which was alive on 9.10.1997 and at the most on 6.4.1998, when all necessary formalities for appointment of Petitioner No. 2, as directed by the Bank, were completed. The Petitioners' case was dealt with under the newly formulated scheme of 18.8.1998. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has cited an example of one Sri J. K. Mehrotra, who was General Manager of the Bank and had sought voluntary retirement under the said scheme of 23.1.1987 and in lieu of this, his son Kapil Mehrotra was appointed in clerical cadre in the services of the Bank on compassionate ground on 16.7.1996. It is stated in the writ petition that the Regional Office of the Bank vide letter dated 25.4.1997 had communicated to the Petitioner No. 1 that if he wants to retire on the ground of ill health and desires employment of his son in the Bank, he should get himself medically examined by specially constituted Medical Board. It was also indicated that his son's case shall be considered on its own merit after the request for voluntary retirement is considered favourably. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has led the Court through Annexure -3 to the petition, which is a copy of the said letter sent by the Regional Office of the Bank. After this assurance, the Petitioner No. 1 went further and submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement. He was 54 years' old and had 4 years more to serve the Bank. The Petitioners' case was rejected on 2.8.2001, after about three years of submission of application for compassionate appointment. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India (5 -Judge Bench decision), as in Shyam Sunder and others. v. Ram Kumar and another : (2001) 8 SCC 24, in support of his submissions that the Petitioners' case ought to have been considered in the light of Scheme dated 23.1.1987, which was in vogue at the relevant time of seeking voluntary retirement and submitting application for employment of Petitioner No. 2 and on the date when all necessary formalities were completed. There is nothing in the new scheme of 18.8.1998 to show that it was enforced with retrospective effect. There is nothing in the service rules of the Bank to show that such scheme, which was framed on 18.8.1998, shall be given retrospective effect.
(3.) SRI Vinayak Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for opposite parties has submitted that the Petitioners' case cannot be dealt with under the Scheme of 23.1.1987. According to him, when their application was under consideration, the scheme of 18.8.1998 was promulgated and under this new scheme, the Bank had decided not to provide compassionate employment to the dependents of deceased employee of the bank or those who had sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds. The Petitioners' case was considered at length in the light of judicial pronouncements and the decision taken by the Indian Banks Association and their representation/appeal etc. has rightly been dismissed by the appropriate authorities of the Bank. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties has drawn the attention of the Court to the following feature of the Scheme of 23.1.1987: The scheme is for employment of the dependent of an employee who becomes physically disabled to the extent that he becomes incapable of rendering any further service in the Bank provided the conditions of the family are indigent and in great distress.;