Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.27 seconds)Section 22 in Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1969 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. Ramachandra Raju vs State Of Orissa on 31 August, 1994
So long as the opinion forming basis of the order for compulsory
retirement in public interest is formed bona fide, the opinion cannot
be ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum. Such an order may
be subjected to judicial review on very limited grounds such as the
order being mala fide, based on no material or on collateral grounds
LPA 403/2015 + WP(C) 3817/2016 Page 22 of 43
or having been passed by an authority not competent to do so. The
object of such compulsory retirement is not to punish or penalise the
government servant but to weed out the worthless who have lost
their utility for the administration by their insensitive, unintelligent
or dubious conduct impeding the flow of administration or
promoting stagnation. The country needs speed, sensitivity, probity,
non-irritative public relation and enthusiastic creativity which can be
achieved by eliminating the dead wood, the paperlogged and callous
(see S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa [1994 Supp (3) SCC
424 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 74 : (1994) 28 ATC 443] . We may with
advantage quote the following passage from this decision: (SCC p.
430, para 9)
"Though the order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and
the government servant on being compulsorily retired is entitled to
draw all retiral benefits, including pension, the Government must
exercise its power in the public interest to effectuate the efficiency of
service. The dead wood needs to be removed to augment efficiency.
Integrity of public service needs to be maintained. The exercise of
power of compulsory retirement must not be a haunt on public
servant but act as a check and reasonable measure to ensure
efficiency in service, and free from corruption and incompetence.
The officer would go by reputation built around him. In appropriate
case, there may not be sufficient evidence to take punitive act of
removal from service. But his conduct and reputation in such that his
continuance in service would be a menace in public service and
injurious to public interest.""
Bank Of Baroda vs S.K. Kool (D) Thr Lrs And Anr on 11 December, 2013
The aforesaid decision, therefore, dealt with an entirely different
factual matrix and the legal issue and question involved is clearly
distinguishable. The question and interpretation involved in the present
case are different. The issue in S.K. Kool (supra) related to the impact and
LPA 403/2015 + WP(C) 3817/2016 Page 13 of 43
effect of Regulation 22, which postulates forfeiture of past service on
punishment of removal, dismissal, resignation and termination, and when
the punishment order directs payment of superannuation benefits. This
decision does not deal with the question whether or not an employee who
had suffered punishment of compulsory retirement with superannuation
benefits was entitled to exercise option in terms of the
circulars/notifications dated 16th August, 2010 and 20th August, 2010. The
decision also does not deal with the question or issue what is meant by the
term "retired", for in the said case, the punishment imposed was one of
removal from service and not compulsory retirement.
State Of West Bengal And Ors. vs Ratan Behari Dey And Ors. on 6 August, 1993
19. The decision in Kailash Nath Singhal (supra) also refers to decision
of State of West Bengal and Others versus Ratan Behari Dey and Others,
(1993) 4 SCC 62 wherein it has been held as under:-
Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 December, 2000
20. The Supreme Court in Bishwanath Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar
& Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 305, observed that compulsory retirement in service
law jurisprudence has two different connotations. Compulsory retirement
may be imposed as a penalty on a delinquent employee found guilty of
LPA 403/2015 + WP(C) 3817/2016 Page 21 of 43
misconduct, in which case it is a penal and stigmatic order and has
consequences. A government servant may also be retired on his attaining a
particular age or completing a certain number of years in service. Such
premature retirements are in public interest and do not cast any stigma. In
the latter case, the government servant is entitled to pension actually earned
and other retirement benefits. For the sake of clarity, we would like to
quote the relevant portion of the aforesaid decision:-
Brij Mohan Singh Chopra vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1987
(1955) 1 SCR 26] , Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of
Punjab [(1987) 2 SCC 188 : (1987) 3 ATC 496] , S. Ramachandra
Raju v. State of Orissa [1994 Supp (3) SCC 424 : 1995 SCC (L&S)
74 : (1994) 28 ATC 443] , Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District
Medical Officer, Baripada [(1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L&S)
521 : (1992) 21 ATC 649] .) More appropriately, it is like premature
retirement. It does not cast any stigma. The government servant shall
be entitled to the pension actually earned and other retiral benefits.
Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada ... on 19 February, 1992
(1955) 1 SCR 26] , Brij Mohan Singh Chopra v. State of
Punjab [(1987) 2 SCC 188 : (1987) 3 ATC 496] , S. Ramachandra
Raju v. State of Orissa [1994 Supp (3) SCC 424 : 1995 SCC (L&S)
74 : (1994) 28 ATC 443] , Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief District
Medical Officer, Baripada [(1992) 2 SCC 299 : 1993 SCC (L&S)
521 : (1992) 21 ATC 649] .) More appropriately, it is like premature
retirement. It does not cast any stigma. The government servant shall
be entitled to the pension actually earned and other retiral benefits.
V. Kasturi vs Managing Director, State Bank Of India, ... on 9 October, 1998
Category-II in V. Kasturi's case (supra) was of those retirees,
who were not covered by any pension scheme. The petitioner‟s case would
be comparable with category-II employees for he was not the pension
optee and not covered under the pension scheme. The petitioner‟s claim is
in fact that he should be allowed to opt for the pension scheme and not that
he is a pension optee and is being discriminated.