N.N. Patel vs Regional Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Another

M.B. Shah, J.—Petitioner who was an officer of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has filed this petition praying that the order refusing extension in senvice to the petitioner passed by the respondent-Bank be quashed and set aside With regard to his prayer that the order of compulsory retirement be quashed and set aside, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner agrees that the petitioner was not compulsorily retired but extension in service was not given to him.

In any view, no direction can be given to the Bank for extending the services of the petitioner. It is the sole discretion of the employer. State or otherwise. This point is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. v. Jag Mohan Lal, reported in 1988 (2) Bank CLR 529. Hence, there is no substance in this petition.

The Supreme Court has held that an employee has no right to remain in service beyond the age of superannuation and, therefore, he cannot claim extension as a matter of right. The Supreme Court has also considered proviso to Regulation 19(1) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Senice Regulations, 1979 and held as under:

Look at the language of proviso and the purpose underlying. 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 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 superanuation 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 discreation 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.

The Bank, however, is required to consider the cases 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 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.

It was however, argued for the respondent that the Bank falls within the concept of ''State'' for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights. The Bank, therefore, cannot extend the service of some and reject the case of other similarly situated. The concept of Article 14 of the Constitution is relied upon. The argument in our opinion, proceeds on a wrong premises.

In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court the prayer of the petitioner that extension ought to have been given after the age of superannuation cannot be granted. It is for the Bank to consider the case of its employees for extension. Bank may exercise its discretion. This would be clear from the further observation made in the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court further held that 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 not heed the services of all retired persons in another year. The Bank may have lesser work load in a succeeding year. The retiring persons cannot in any year demand that "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 arbitrariness in the matter of giving extension of service to retiring persons.

In above view of the matter, this petition is rejected. Notice discharged.