Punjab-Haryana High Court
D.C. Aggarwal, Deputy General Manager, ... vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 5 October, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)106PLR42
ORDER
N.K. Kapoor and A.L. Bahri, JJ.
1. Petitioner D.C. Aggarwal, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, has sought quashing of the order dated 9.9.1993 vide which he is denied extension in service beyond 58 years of age and his dismissal of the appeal vide order dated 27.9.1993 with a further prayer that the operation of these orders be stayed and the petitioner be allowed to continue to discharge his duties upto attaining the age of 60 years.
2. According to the petitioner, he joined the service of respondent No. 1 as probationery officer in the year 1961 and by dint of hard work, devotion to duty and dedicated service rose to the level of Top Executive Grade VI as far back as 27.8.1980 and was given charge as Deputy General Manager of the zone comprising of Bank Branches of Haryana State and Union Territory of Chandigarh. The petitioner has further averred that he had earned several letters of appreciation from his superiors during these years. It is only in the year 1981 that an enquiry was ordered by the Bank's Vigilance Department, Central Office, Bombay. However, in the enquiry the petitioner was exonerated. Despite this, the Managing Director of the respondent Bank being the disciplinary authority disagreed with report of the enquiry and so ordered punishment of the petitioner imposing reduction in III Grade. This order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court and the same was set aside vide judgment dated 9.4.1991 in CWP No. 15874 of 1989. L.P.A. filed by the respondent-Bank was dismissed in limine on 15.5.1991. The petitioner was thus entitled to be placed in Scale VIII i.e. at the level of Chief General Manager. The petitioner made numerous representations to the respondent-Bank seeking promotion to the Top Executive Grade VIII, but did not receive any satisfactory reply. Consequently, a contempt petition was filed and pursuance to the notice issued by the Court Sarv Sh. V. Mahadavan and P.V. Subba Rao, Managing Director, put in appearance and filed affidavit on behalf of the respondents. This Court came to the conclusion that prima facie contempt has been made out against the respondents and, therefore, rule nisi was issued against both the Managing Directors-respondents in the petition. This order was impugned by the Bank by filing S.L.P. before the Supreme Court of India wherein interim directions were given by the Court that petitioner be given a suitable posting at Chandigarh, if available. It further directed the respondent-Bank to complete the departmental proceedings within the stipulated period. Finally, the apex Court vide judgment dated 17.8.1993 disposed of the matter with the direction that the case of the petitioner for promotion will be considered on its merit. Since.the Bank agreed to drop the departmental proceedings, contempt proceedings pending before the High Court were also ordered to be dropped.
3. It is in pursuance to the direction of the apex Court that the case for extension of petitioner's service as per Paragraph 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) (for short 'the Paragraph') was examined by the view Committee which is being impugned on the ground (1) that no reason has been given for non grant of extension to the petitioner. This way there has been no applicability of mind by the Review Committee; (ii) that the petitioner's service record has been excellent outstanding. Nothing adverse has been communicated to the petitioner and thus he was entitled for an extension upto 60 years of age; (iii) Though service beyond 58 years of age is termed as an extension but in actual fact officers recruited before 19.7.1969 continued in service upto 60 years of age and exception is seldom; (iv) the conduct of the bank is not bona fide as on one hand departmental proceedings have been dropped and was called for promotion whereas, on the other hand, this right to claim extension in service has been denied, (v) Even the chairman as an appellate authority has not examined the merit of the petitioner with an open mind and the personal hearing granted to the petitioner was merely an eye wash.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and perused the material documents referred during arguments. Initiation of enquiry proceedings, awarding of Punishment as well as orders passed by this Court in writ petition as well as in contempt proceedings finally culminating in the passing of the order by the apex Court on 17.8.1993 has, in fact, no bearing on the point in controversy. Necessary relief sought by the petitioner in these proceedings has already been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and so seeks extension in terms of Paragraph 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and conditions of Service) Order 1979. The relevant part of the paragraph is reproduced hereunder:-
"Category of Officers Service or age of retirement
a) Officers who joined 30 Years of pensionable
the Bank service as an service or 30 years of
an officer or as an service (for those who are
award employee prior not members of Pension Fund),
to 19th July, 1969. or 58 years of age which ever
occurs first, unless extension
in service has been granted
by competent authority.
However, such extension
shall not be granted beyond
60 years of age."
"Review for grant of extension in service; The case of officers will be reviewed for the purpose of grant of extension in service or 'otherwise at the following stages:
a) Officers who had joined the Banks service before 19th July, 1969;
First Stage: On attaining 50 years of age or completing 30
years of pensionable service or 30 years of
service (in case of those who are no members
of pension Fund) whichever occurs first.
Second Stage: On attaining 55 years of age
Third Stage : On attaining 58 years of age."
5. The paragraph further lays criteria for grant of extension in service. An officer who performs well, is efficient and possesses good health is to be considered suitable for grant of extension in service. It is an overall assessment of the Officer's utility to the Bank which is to be considered while granting extension in service. The guiding factor is officer's continued usefulness to the bank. The matter is examined by the Review Committee consisting of Managing Director, Deputy Managing Director (Personnel & Systems) and Deputy Managing Director (Corporate, Operations and services). Paragraph 10 (1) further grant a right of appeal to an aggrieved officer.
6. Admittedly, the case for extension of petitioner's service was referred to a Review Committee which consisted of Deputy Managing Director (Associate Banks), Deputy Managing Director (HR&D), and Deputy Managing Director (T&TM). Though normally Review Committee in case of TEGS Scale VI is to consist of a Managing Director and two Deputy Managing Directors, but since the Bank had only one Managing Director, namely, Sh. P.V. Subba Rao. Sh. P.V. Subha Rao, who had been arrayed as respondent in the contempt petition, and so the Bank keeping in view the directions of the Supreme Court constituted this Review Committee. The Review Committee came to the conclusion that the extension in service to the petitioner would not be in the interest of the Bank. In appeal, the appellate authority examined the record of the proceedings of the Review Committee as well as heard the petitioner in person. The appellate authority found no merit in any of the submissions made by the petitioner and consequently dismissed the same vide order dated September 25, 1993. On perusal of the record, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that over the years the official concerned has developed complete apathy to the organisational task. In fact, his personal problems take precedence over Bank's work. The appellate authority further observed that normally extension in service is granted to the officer whose continuation is useful to the Bank, major parameters being that he performs well; is efficient and possesses good health. However, as per appellate authority, the petitioner did not exhibit any of these qualities. Even in his personal assessment, the petitioner was not found upto the mark as is clear from the following observations, "in the personal hearing he could not reply correctly to the questions put on current investment schemes in the market. Conceptually also, he seemed weak about the Bank's operations." Besides these, the appellate authority noticed various instances when the petitioner disobeyed his superior's instructions, defined their authority, gave no importance to punctuality etc. With these two independent assessments, it can be hardly inferred that the Senior Officer of the Bank examined the case of the petitioner with any preconceived notion. We also do not find much merit in the contention of the petitioner that extension beyond 58 years of age in service is to be granted merely on the ground that the petitioner has not earned any adverse report during his service career. Paragraph 19(1) prescribes criteria for grant of extension in service. The ultimate test being officer's usefulness to the Bank. The decision of Calcutta High Court in case reported as Sankar Prosad Chattakhandi v. State Bank of India and Ors. 1987(2) S.L.R. 747 does not help the petitioner in any manner. It has been specifically held that extension of service cannot be claimed as of right. All that it states is that a person is entitled to claim consideration for such extension as of right. In the present case, the petitioners claim has been duly examined by the Review Committee which has not found the petitioner suitable for extension in service. Even the appellate authority, on perusal of the relevant record, did not find any substance in any of the pleas raised by the petitioner. The apex Court in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. v. Jag Mohan Lal, AIR 1989 S.C. 75, Examined the Regulation 19(1) and its Proviso and held as under:-
"Provided that the competent authority may at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of fifty eight years or has completed thirty year's service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank.
Look at the language of proviso and the purpose underlying. The Bank may in its discretion extend the service of any officer. On that 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 officer. Incidentally the extension may benefit retired officials. But it is incorrect to state that it is a conferment of benefit of 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."
7. The sole purpose of giving extension of service is to promote the interest of the Bank and not to confer any benefit on the retiring officer. The matter having been properly examined by the competent authority, we do not find any ground to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed limine.