B.K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) By means of this writ application, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 4.7.2003 by which while allowing the petitioner to go on retirement on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.9.2003 deemed the petitioner to be in service as per the provisions of Rule 46(c), of the Staff Rules of the Bank till final disposal of the CBI enquiry including the alleged irregularity of finance involving the petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner was an employee under the respondent bank serving as Manager, Planning and Development Department at the time of his retirement. On receipt of the aforesaid impugned communication dated 4.7.2003, although the petitioner was allowed to go on retirement with effect from 30.9.2003 by order dated 30.9.2003, in view of his deemed continuance in service pending the alleged CBI enquiry, he has not been provided with the retirement benefits. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned communication dated 4.7.2003 with all consequential retirement benefits as admissible to the petitioner under the rules.
(3.) No affidavit in opposition has been filed by the respondent bank. I have heard Mr. G.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. P. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the respondent bank assisted by Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel. Mr. Bhattacharyya referring to the Rule 46 (c) of the Staff Rules on the basis of which the impugned communication dated 4.7.2003 has been made, submits that the provisions of the said rules are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances involved in this case. He further submits that even if the provisions are made applicable, the bank authority cannot detain the petitioner indefinitely toward deprivation of the retirement benefits without giving any finality to the matter.;