Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is Middle Management Group -Scale III Officer posted as Manager Concurrent Audit in the respondent -Bank. The petitioner was initially appointed on 19.5.1971.
(2.) THE petitioner is governed by the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. The Indian Banks' Association, of which the respondent -Bank is a member, evolved a Scheme called Voluntary Retirement Scheme after getting approval from the Government of India and advised the member -Banks to implement the same so as to curtail the staff's strength in the Bank. The respondent -Bank has also circulated the Scheme. The Scheme was to remain open during the period 15.2.2001 to 01.03.2001 with an option to the Bank to close early/extend the Scheme, without assigning any reasons. The applications for voluntary retirement under the State Bank of Patiala Voluntary Retirement Scheme(hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme') was to be accepted during this period only. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement under the Scheme. Clause 8 of the Scheme which is relevant for determination of the issues raised in the present case, reads as under: Other Features. The Bank intends to control the outflow of personnel according to its requirements. Towards this end, Bank retains the discretion to limit the number of employees to be allowed to retire in each category of staff viz. officer/clerical -cash/subordinate, to be covered, under SBPVRS. As such the bank will have the sole discretion as to the acceptance or the rejection of the request for retirement under SBPVRS 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, which will be conveyed within a maximum period of two months after the date of closure of receipt of applications i.e. (01.03.2001).
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that he has applied for voluntary retirement within the time prescribed and was eligible under the Scheme, but still the respondent -Bank has increased the cut off age from 40 years to 53 years vide Annexure P.8 and therefore, the action of the respondent -Bank in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not tenable.;