Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lal Chand Goyal vs Punjab State Agricultural Marketing ... on 11 February, 2014
Author: Harinder Singh Sidhu
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Harinder Singh Sidhu
CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 10.02.2014
1. CWP No. 11994 of 2013
Lal Chand Goyal
...Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and others
...Respondents
2. CWP No. 11455 of 2013
Gurbax Singh Sekhon
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
3. CWP No. 12057 of 2013
Harbhagwan (Retd.) Manager
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
4. CWP No. 6900 of 2013
Gurcharan Lal Bhatia
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
5. CWP No. 26331 of 2013
Surjit Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
6. CWP No. 27631 of 2013
Sat Paul Jakhu and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
7. CWP No. 27845 of 2013
Taran Pal Singh and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
8. CWP No. 22 of 2014
Atul Kumar Tripathi
2014.03.07 11:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -2-
Niranjan Singh Guleria and others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present: - Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate
(in CWP No. 10743 of 2013).
Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate
(in CWP No. 27845 and 22 of 2013)
Mr. Padam Kant Dwivedi, Advocate
(in CWP No. 6900 of 2013)
for the petitioners.
Mr. Avin Arora, Advocate
for Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.(CWP No. 10743 of 2013)
Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate
for G.S. Attariwala, Advocate
for respondent No.4 (CWP No. 6900 of 2013).
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.1&2 (CWP No. 11994 & 11455/13)
Mr. A.S. Bedi, Advocate
for respondent No.4. (in CWP No. 22 of 2014, CWP No.
27631, 27845, 26331 of 2013.)
****
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU,J This order shall dispose of above said 9 writ petitions as the common question of law and facts are involved therein. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 11994 of 2013.
The petitioner was appointed as Auction Recorder on 01.11.1973. Thereafter he was promoted as Mandi Supervisor in 1982, as Assistant Secretary, Market Committee Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -3- on 05.08.1992 and as a Secretary Market Committee in 2010. He was due to retire on reaching the age of superannuation on 30.07.2013.
The petitioner has filed Writ Petition seeking quashing of the instructions dated 27.02.2013 (P-6) and order dated 26.03.2013 (P-7) whereby respondent-Board declined to grant benefit of extension of one year service to its employees after attaining the age of superannuation. The case of the petitioner is that his services are governed by the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Class II) Service Rules, 1988 (for brevity 'the Rules'), which have been framed under Section 43 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'). It is the case of the petitioner that these service rules do not contain any provision dealing with the age of superannuation of the employees of the Marketing Board. As per Rule 13 of the Rules, in respect of pay, leave and other matters not expressly provided for in these rules the members of the service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, as applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab from time to time. Rule 13 is reproduced as under:
"13. Leave, Pay and others matters etc.-
(1) In respect of of pay leave and other mattes not expressly provided for in these rules the members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules, as applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab from time to time.
(2) In respect of provident fund and gratuity, the members of the service shall be governed by the Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -4-
Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committee Employees Provident Fund and Gratuity Rules, 1965 and the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committees, Employees Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity rules, 1987."
Relying on Rule 13 it is contended that as the age of superannuation is not specifically provided for in the Rules, the same would be governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules as applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab from time to time.
Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume I Part I (for brevity 'CSR') specifies the age of retirement of the Punjab Government Employees. These rules were amended vide notification dated 8th October, 2012 called the Punjab Civil Services (First Amendment) Rules, Volume I Part-I, 2012.
The Rule 3.26 of the CSR as amended is reproduced below:
"3.26 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, the date of retirement of a Government employee other than a Group D Government employee shall be the date on which he attains the age of 58 years and the date of retirement of Group D Government Employee shall be the date on which he attains the age of 60 years:
Provided that if the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in public interest so to do, the service of Government employee or a Class of Government employees, may be extended beyond the date of retirement for a period not Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -5- exceeding two years, after getting an option from the concerned Government employee or the Government employees, as the case may be.
Provided further that a Government employee must not be retained in service after the period of service extended under this clause, except in exceptional circumstances with the previous sanction of the competent authority in public interest and for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in these rules or any other rules for the time being in force, during the extended period of service under clause (a) of this rule, a Government employee shall be entitled to pay equal to the pay last drawn by him on the date on which he attains the age of 58 years or 60 years, as the case may be. However, if a promotional post is available, he shall be eligible for consideration for promotion against that post and on promotion his pay shall be fixed under the relevant rules."
As per this amendment the age of retirement of a Government employee other than a Group D Government employee shall be 58 years but the date of retirement of Group D employee shall be 60 years. In terms of the provision the State government may, if it considers necessary or expedient in public interest, grant extension to a employee or class of employee beyond the age of retirement for a period not exceeding two years After the aforesaid amendment dated 08.10.2012, the Government of Punjab issued a circular dated 08.10.2012 Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -6- (Annexure P-3) extending the date of retirement of Punjab Government employees of all groups i.e. Group A, B, C and D by one year. The relevant part of the circular is extracted below:
"I have been instructed to draw your kind attention to the subject cited above and to state that keeping in view the amendment of Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume- 1, Part-1, the Governor of Punjab has been pleased to approve the extension of one year in the services of Punjab Government Group "A", Group "B", Group "C"
and Group "D" employees. This extension in service shall be done as per the below mentioned conditions:
"(a) This extension shall be given to those employees only who shall give their options as per the prescribed proforma which is enclosed with this letter. The necessary option would be given to the Head of the Office within a period of three months i.e. prior to the date of completion of the 58/60 years as per Clause
(a) of the Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-1, Part-1, subject to the condition that if the period left is less than 3 months in the maximum limit of retirement of the employees, they can submit their option at any time from the date of issuance of this letter till the day of his maximum limit of retirement.
The option given once shall be treated as final and no permission shall be given to the change of any type.
(b) During the period of extension, the concerned employee, would draw their salary as per Clause (b) of the Rule 3.26 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume -1, Part-1 i.e. he shall take salary equivalent to the salary which is payable to him last at the time of his retirement.
(c) During the period of extension, in case of availability of the post of promotion, the concerned Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -7- employee as per the rules shall be considered against the promotional post and in the situation of promotion, the salary of the concerned employee shall be fixed with promotion benefits as per rules.
(d) All the pensionary benefits of the concerned employees upon retirement shall be payable to him after the completion of the extended period of the services.
2. These instructions shall be applicable to those employees whose retirement date shall be 31st October, 2012 and thereafter."
It is the contention of the petitioner that by force of the amended Rule 3.26 of the CSR and the circular dated 08.10.2012, the employees of the respondent-Board are entitled to the same benefit of extension of service of one year beyond the age of superannuation because in terms of Rule 13 , the rules and instructions as applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab from time to time are equally applicable to the employees of the respondent-Board. But when despite the aforesaid legal position, the employees of the respondent- Board as also of other Boards and Corporations in the State were not given the benefit of extension of service of one year, they approached this Court by filing a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No. 3653 of 2013 praying that they be also given the benefit of extension in service.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the State of Punjab framed a policy dated 27.02.2013 on the subject of extension of one year service of officers/officials of public sector undertakings, Autonomous bodies and Co-operative institutions. In view of this policy having been framed , the writ Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -8- petitions were disposed of as having been rendered infructuous vide order dated 28.02.2013 and the petitioners were given liberty to approach the respondent-authorities to seek benefits of extension of service as per policy dated 27.02.2013. The respondent-authorities were directed that any such representation made shall be decided by passing a speaking order within one month thereafter in accordance with the provisions of policy dated 27.02.2013. On submission of representation by the employees of the respondent-Board, the matter was considered and the order dated 26.03.2013 (P-7) was passed declining to grant extension for a period of one year in service keeping in view of the interest of the Board.
It is this order (P-7) and policy dated 27.02.2013,(Annexure P-6) which is impugned in this writ petition and the prayer is to quash the same and that the respondents be directed to grant the benefit of extension of one year service to the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation with all consequential benefits. The relevant portion of the policy instructions dated 27.02. 2013 is reproduced below:
"Subject: Extension of one year in service of the officers/officials of the Public Sector Undertakings, Autonomous bodies & Co-operative Institutions.
Refer to the subject mentioned above.
2. The Government of Punjab, Department of Finance (Finance Personnel-2 Branch) vide its notification NO. 22/2/2012-3FP2/469, dated 8.10.2012 made amendment in Rule 3.26 of Punjab Service Rules Volume-I, Part-I according to Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -9- which if it is necessary or expedient in public interest, a service of a Government employee or a class of Government employees may be extended beyond the date of superannuation for the period not exceeding two years after getting an option from the concerned Government employees or the Government employees as the case may be. After this amendment, the State Government vide their letter No. 22/2/2012- 3FP2/475, dated 8.10.2012 granted one year extension in service to all those employees who were retiring on or after 31.10.2012. This extension was granted to all the employees of the State Government irrespective of their service record. This extension has been granted subject to the condition that the employees shall give their option in writing to the competent authority so as to be entitled that they withdraw emoluments equal to the Last Pay Drawn at the time of their superannuation according to Rule 3.26(b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-I, Part-I and shall draw all allowances given by Government from time to time.
3. Thereafter the Department of Finance (Finance Personnel-2 Branch) vide their letter No. 22/2/2012-3FP2/607, dated 26.11.2012, clarified to all the departments that this benefit may not be given to the employees of those departments in which projects/schemes are going to be closed or likely to be closed in near future and in those departments where services cadre has been declared as diminishing cadre, meaning voluntary/resignation/death of the employees or due to any other reasons, as a result of the abolition of posts cadre is diminishing, this benefit of extension of one year service may not Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -10- be given to officers/ officials appointed on such post.
4. Now the Department of Finance has received cases from various Board/ Corporations seeking clarification/guidelines in this regard and also sought permission to grant extension of one year to the employees in their respective Board/Corporations. Therefore, accordingly following decision has been taken that:-
(a) This decision shall be applicable in those Board/Corporations who have made provisions in their bye-laws/service rules to adopt Punjab Civil Services Rules or those Board/Corporations in which the age of retirement is at par with the employees of the State Government.
(b) The Board/ Corporations can extend one year service of their employees after seeking the approval of their respective administrative departments.
(c) The Boards/ Corporations before granting one year extension in service of their employees shall also keep in view the following points:-
(i) That the extension of one year service shall be applicable to all the employees working in the respective Board/Corporations as has been done in respect of all State Government employees, no pick and choose policy shall be adopted.
(ii) No further extension shall be granted to the employees working in the Boards/ Corporations where cadre of specific categories has been declared as diminishing cadre or where there is surplus staff in any category.
(iii) The extension of one year service shall not be granted in case where the financial position of those Board/Corporations is effected by granting one year extension in service.Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -11-
(iv) The extension of one year service shall not be granted to the employees of those institutions who receive grant-in-aid from State of Punjab.
6. These instructions shall be applicable only to those officers/officials whose date of one year extension falls on or after the date of issue of these instructions.
7. These instructions are being issued with the approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister of Punjab." The respondent-Board has filed written statement refuting the contention of the petitioner. It has been stated that the amendment carried out in Rule 3.26(a) of CSR is merely an enabling provision for extension of service upto 60 years and it does not confer any right on the petitioner to claim it as a matter of right. Defending the policy instructions dated 27.02.2013, it has been stated that these instructions are self explanatory so far as their applications to various Boards/ Corporations in the State is concerned and that the concerned Boards/Corporations while taking the decision to grant or not grant extension would apart from various matters consider their financial position. No pick and choose policy would be adopted and the extension of one year service shall be applicable to all employees working in the Board/Corporations. It has been submitted that the matter was got examined from the point of view of financial implications for the Board and taking totality of circumstances into consideration, it was decided not to grant extension in one year service. Repelling the contention of the petitioner regarding applicability of Rule 13 of the Rules and emphasizing on the condition spelt out in the amended Rule 3.26 of the CSR, it has been submitted that Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -12- extension in service can be granted only when it is felt necessary or expedient in public interest. The respondents examined the case and did not find it necessary or expedient in public interest to grant extension in one year in service. It was further submitted that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to how non-extension in service by one year is against public interest or for that matter it is necessary or expedient.
We have heard counsel for the parties. The primary contention of counsel for the petitioner is as there is no provision in the Rules of 1988 dealing with the age of superannuation ,in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, the Rules as applicable to the employees of the Government of Punjab from time to time are to govern the members of the respondent- Board. The contention is that as the amended Rule 3.26 of the CSR provides for extension in service to Punjab Government employees beyond the age of superannuation, similar extension in service is liable to be granted to employees of the respondent-Board.
This argument completely misses out the import of the proviso to Rule 3.26 (a) of the CSR. It is not the case where the age of superannuation has been increased from 58 years to 60 years by virtue of the amendment. Through the proviso an enabling provision has been made that in case the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in public interest , then the service of a Government employee or class of Government employee may be extended beyond Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -13- the date of retirement not exceeding two years. The underlined words in the said proviso clearly indicate that extension in service beyond the age of superannuation is not a matter of course. Any grant of extension has to be preceded by formation of an opinion by the government that it is necessary or expedient in public interest to grant the extension. Vide instructions dated 08.10.2012, the Governor of Punjab in view of the amendments in Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 3.26 of CSR Volume I Part I as amended, approved the extension of one year in service to Punjab Government employees. Evidently, this was the conscious decision of the Government in consonance with the provisions aforesaid. If the Government had not taken this decision dated 08.10.2012, no Punjab Government employee could claim any right that he or she should be granted extension in service of one year. The Government employees got the benefit of extension in service because of the conscious decision of the Government reflected in the instructions dated 08.10.2012.
As these instructions were not made applicable to the employees of Boards and Corporations, they agitated before the Court that guidelines for extension in service qua employees of Boards and Corporations be also formulated. In response, the Government has formulated guidelines/ instructions dated 27.02.2013, which would be applicable to those Boards and Corporations, who have made provisions in their service rules to adopt Punjab Civil Service Rules. In terms of these these instructions, the Boards and Corporations are Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -14- required to keep in view certain matters spelt out in these instructions which are are rational, reasonable and in keeping with the interest of the concerned Boards and Corporations.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dayanand Chakrawarty and others 2013 (4) SCT 145. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the age of superannuation of State Government employees had been increased from 58 years to 60 years. Regulations 31 of the U.P. Jal Nigam provided that for matters for which there is no provision in the regulations the pay, allowance, pension, leave and other conditions of service of the members of service shall be regulated by rules, regulations or orders applicable to the Government employees serving in connection with the affairs of the State. It was in this context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that as Regulations had been framed by Nigam specifically enumerating in Regulation 31, that the rules governing service condition of Government employees shall apply to the employees of the Nigam that it was not possible for the Nigam to take any administrative decision directing that enhanced age of superannuation of 60 years applicable to the Government employees shall not apply to the employees of the Nigam. It was stated that only option for the Nigam was to make suitable amendment in Regulation 31 providing thereunder that the age of superannuation of its employees would be 58 years in case it intended that 60 years, which was Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -15- enhanced age of superannuation of State Government employee should not be made applicable to the employees of the Nigam. It was also held that it is not possible for the State Government to give a direction that the enhanced age of 60 years would not be applicable to the employees of the Nigam.
In the present case, the age of superannuation has not been increased, vide amendment of Rule 3.26 of CSR, to 60 years. Only a proviso has been added that in case the Government deems it necessary or expedient in public interest it may grant extension in service for a period not exceeding two years beyond the date of superannuation. The respondent- Board has taken a conscious decision keeping in view the financial implication and totality of circumstances not to grant extension in one year in service to its employees. In the decision dated 26.03.2013 it has been stated thus:
".....After examining it has been found that during the last four years the expenditure on the salaries of the employees of all the Market Committees has increased continuously. Similarly, the expenditure related to the salaries of the employees of the Punjab Mandi Board for the year 2008-09 was Rs. 48,32,30,938/- which increased to Rs. 87,20,70,836/- for the year of 2011-12. Accordingly, the expenditure related to the salaries of the employees of the Market Committees for the year 2008-09 was Rs. 10,538 lacs which increased to Rs. 18,883 lacs for the year 2011-12. There is full attempt to stop the unproductive expenses by the Punjab Mandi Board, so that there is availability of funds to be used for development of roads and Mandis.Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -16- Keeping in view the above reasons, the extension for the period of one year cannot be granted to your service, in view of the interest of the Board. Hence the same is declined."
Plainly no fault can be found with the said decision. The question of grant of extension in service beyond the age of superannuation has been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in various cases. The common thread in all these decisions is that there is no legal right vested in an employee to seek extension in service beyond the age of superannuation. It is a discretion available to every employer, every management and State to exercise discretion keeping in view public interest. It has also been stated that the extension in service is not conferment of benefit or privilege on the Officer. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Jag Mohan Lal, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 221, at page 224 held as under:
"9.
9. It seems to us that the High Court has misconstrued the legal right claimed by the respondent. The right to get extension of service beyond the age of superannuation has received consideration of this Court in several cases. In State of Assam v. Basanta Kumar Das. after reviewing almost all the earlier decisions [Kailash Chandra v. Union of India; B.N. Mishra v. State of U. P and State of Assam v. Premadhar], this Court said: (SCR p. 165 :
SCC p. 467, paras 16 and 18) "A government servant has no right to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation and if he is retained beyond that age it is only in exercise of the discretion Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -17- of the Government....
The fact that certain persons were found fit to be continued in service does not mean that others who were not so found fit had been discriminated against. Otherwise the whole idea of continuing only efficient people in service even after they had completed 55 years becomes only meaningless."
10. What do we have here in this case to distinguish those principles or not to apply those principles? In our opinion, there is none. In the scheme provided herein the respondent or any other officer of the Bank has a legitimate right to remain in service till he attains the age of superannuation. But beyond that age, he has no such right unless his service is extended by the Bank. The further rights of parties are regulated by the proviso to Regulation 19(1). It reads:
"Provided that the competent authority may, at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of 58 years or has completed thirty years' service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank."(emphasis supplied)
11. Look at the language of the proviso and the purpose underlying it. The Bank may in its discretion extend the service of any officer. On what ground? For what purpose? That has been also made clear in the proviso itself. It states "should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank". The sole purpose of giving extension of service is, therefore, to promote the interest of the Bank and not to confer any benefit on the retiring Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -18- officers. Incidentally the extension may benefit retired officials. But it is incorrect to state that it is a conferment of benefit or privilege on officers. The officers upon attaining the age of superannuation or putting the required number of years of service do not earn that benefit or privilege. The High Court has completely misunderstood the nature of right and purpose of the proviso. The proviso preserves discretion to the Bank. It is a discretion available with every employer, every management, State or otherwise. If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is desirable in the interest of the Bank, it may allow him to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation. If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is not required beyond superannuation, it is an end of the matter. It is no reflection on the officer. It carries no stigma."
In the case of D.C. Aggarwal v. State Bank of India, (2006) 5 SCC 153, at page 164, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under:
"29.
29. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant proceeded on a misapprehension of the manner in which extension of service is to be granted. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Jag Mohan Lal (hereinafter "Jag Mohan Lal") this Court had occasion to point out that a rule under which extension of service can be granted beyond the normal age of retirement, does not invest a legal right in the employee to be granted such an extension. The very same regulation as in this case was interpreted in Jag Mohan Lal and it was pointed out therein that the sole purpose of giving extension of service is to promote the interest of Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -19- the Bank and not to confer any benefit or favour on retiring officers.5 It was pointed out that it was not a conferment of a benefit or privilege on officers. Merely because the officer has put in the requisite number of years of service, that does not earn him/her that benefit or privilege. This Court observed: (SCC p. 225, para 12)
"12. The Bank, however, is required to consider the case of individual officers with due regard to (i) continued utility; (ii) good health; and (iii) integrity beyond reproach of the officer. If the officer lacks one or the other, the Bank is not bound to give him extension of service. In this case, the Bank has shown to the High Court that the case of the respondent was considered and he did not fit in the said guidelines. The High Court does not sit in an appeal against that decision. The High Court under Article 226 cannot review that decision."
30. If the bank considers that the continuance of services of an officer is desirable in the interest of the bank, it may allow him to continue beyond the age of superannuation. If the bank considers that the service of the officer is not required beyond the age of superannuation, that is the end of the matter. Further, non-extension of service is no reflection on the calibre of the officer and it carries no stigma.
31. It appears to us that these principles were not kept in mind by the learned Single Judge when he interfered with the discretion of the respondent Bank not to grant an extension to the appellant. The Division Bench has, however, rightly applied the legal principle stated in Jag Mohan Lal and found that there was no such right vested in the appellant to demand an extension beyond the age of fifty-eight years. Further, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench found that the extension had been refused for Atul Kumar Tripathi good reasons and was not liable to be interfered 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -20- within its writ jurisdiction. We agree with this reasoning of the High Court."
In a recent case P. Venugopal v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 1, at page 8, the same view was reiterated:
"8.
8. It is true that in establishments like AIIMS, there is an age of superannuation governing the length of service of its officers and employees. Such age of superannuation may be suitably altered by way of reducing the age so as to affect even the serving employees under appropriate circumstances and no exception can be taken to such course of action. Similarly, under the service rules, there may be provision for extension of service after the attainment of the age of superannuation and it is well settled that in the event of refusal by an employer to grant an extension, the employee cannot justifiably claim to be deprived of any right or privilege. The view taken is that the employer has a discretion to grant or not to grant such extension having regard to the interest of the employer or the establishment. This view was expressed by this Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Jag Mohan Lal. In this case, at AIR para 12, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 226, para 13) "13. ... The Bank has no obligation to extend the services of all officers even if they are found suitable in every respect. The interest of the Bank is the primary consideration for giving extension of service. With due regard to exigencies of service, the Bank in one year may give extension to all suitable retiring officers. In another year, it may give extension to some and not to all. In a subsequent year, it may not give extension to any one of the officers. The Bank may have a lot of fresh recruits in one year. The Atul Kumar Tripathi 2014.03.07 11:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 11994 of 2013 and other connected case -21- Bank may not need the services of all retired persons in another year. The Bank may have lesser workload in a succeeding year. The retiring persons cannot in any year demand 'extension to all or none'. If we concede that right to retiring persons, then the very purpose of giving extension in the interest of the Bank would be defeated. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no scope for complaining of arbitrariness in the matter of giving extension of service to retiring persons."
In the light of the above discussion, it has to be held that the instructions dated 27.02.2013 (Annexure P-6) and the order dated 26.03.13 (Annexure P-7) are legal and valid. No direction or mandamus is liable to be issued to the respondent-Board to grant the benefit of extension of one year service to the petitioner beyond the age of superannuation.
These writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
Judge Judge
February 10, 2014
Atul
Atul Kumar Tripathi
2014.03.07 11:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh