New Bank of India Officers Association Vs. New Bank of India and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - constitutional validity - regulations 1 (2), 19 and 19 (1) of new bank of india (officers) service regulations, 1982 - petitioner sought declaration that proviso to regulation 19 (1) are illegal and invalid - age of retirement of employee shall be determined by board in accordance with guidelines issued by government from time to time - bank may at its discretion retire officer employee on or at any time after completion of 55 years of age or at any time after completion of 30 years of total service - held, provisions contained in regulation 19 (1) illegal and invalid. - orders.m. abdul wahab, j. 1. this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for declaring the proviso to regulation 19(1) and regulation 1(2) of the new bank of india (officers') service regulations, 1982 as illegal and invalid in law and violative of articles hand 16 of the constitution of india.2. the petitioner in his affidavit stated that ' petitioner- association is an union of all india new bank of india (officers') association. it is a recognised and registered union, and the sole collective bargaining agent of the officer employees of the first respondent-bank in tamil-nadu. the first respondent-bank was nationalised under the banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) act, 1980. after the nationalisation of the first respondent-bank by virtue of the powers.....

Judgment:
ORDER

S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for declaring the proviso to Regulation 19(1) and Regulation 1(2) of the New Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations, 1982 as illegal and invalid in law and violative of Articles Hand 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner in his affidavit stated that ' petitioner- Association is an Union of All India New Bank of India (Officers') Association. It is a recognised and registered Union, and the sole collective bargaining agent of the officer employees of the first respondent-Bank in Tamil-nadu. The first respondent-Bank was nationalised under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. After the nationalisation of the first respondent-Bank by virtue of the powers vested with them under Section 19 of the said Act, the Board of Directors of the first respondent Bank, in consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Goverment, has framed New Bank of India (Officers') Serv- ice Regulations, 1982. Regulation 19(1) of the proviso, provides for prescribing the age limit of the retirement and the proviso of the said Regulation is that a committee recommended for compulsory retirement of an officer after completion of 55 years of age at any time or after the completion of 30 years of total service or otherwise whichever is earlier. Regulation 19(2) provides employer constituting a Special committee to review the service of the officer and employees for retirement as per proviso (1) of Regulation 19. The said Regulations 19(1) and (2) give arbitrary powers to the first respondent-Bank. Therefore a permanent officer employee of the bank cannot be compulsorily retired from service at the pleasure of the employer viz., 1st re-spondent-Bank. There are no guidelines for special Committee to decide the basis on which the officer employee could be recommended for being compulsorily retired. On harmonious reading of the provisions of Regulation 19(1) without the proviso and Regulation 4(f) of the New Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982, the officer employee is entitled to be in service till he at-tains the age of 60 years. In para 16 of the affidavit, it is stated that a Board meeting was held on July 28, 1984 where at a decision was taken to compulsorily retire the fifth and sixth respondents on that day itself. In view of the above, ac-ton was taken by the first respondent Bank against fifth and sixth respondents. Hence the writ petition is filed for the above said relief.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2. In the counter affidavit they contended that the compulsory retirement as contemplated by the proviso would not be arbitrary, since the Special Committee has to recommend the action after reviewing the services of Officer employee. The officers who constituted the Special Committee are the senior officers. In such circumstances, they would act in a fair and proper manner. Even though there is no necessity in law to issue any guidelines for Review Committee to decide on the basis on which the officer- employee can be recommended for being compulsorily retired. The Reserve Bank of India which is an apex and skilled body in the sphere of Banking had been consulted for formulation of the Regulations applicable to all the Nationalised Banks on the principle of uniformity . As such the provisos to the Regulation No. 19 are common to all the Nationalised Banks of the country.. It is also further stated that the allegations with reference to respondents 4 and 5 mere was no necessity for meeting them, since submission has already been made in the counter itself. The respondents submit that the petition has been filed only in order to get relief for 5th and 6th respondents. The petition is not maintainable in the court with reference to the jurisdiction to deal with the cases of respondents 5 and 6.

4. The 5th and 6th respondents have filed W.M. P. Nos. 16021 of 1995 to amend the case title in the writ petition.W.M.P No. 16022 of 1995 is for transposing them as petitioners 1 and 2 in the above writ petition, and permit them to prosecute along with writ petitioner and to assail the order of compulsory retirement dated July 28, 1984 issued to them individually.

5. At the commencement of argument the learned counsel for petitioner brought to my notice the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India, The New Bank of India Officers Association & Ors. v. New Bank Of India & Ors. (with office report) dated Febaury 3, 1987 in S.L.P. No.3680 of 1987 against the order of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 1269 of 1986 dated December 10. 1986. In the above order, the Supreme Court states that Dr. L.M Singhvi counsel for the New Bank of India and others. had not raised any objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras to hear the case as regards the petitioners who are involved in this case. In view of the said submissions another writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court by the petitioner herein was withdrawn. After the said Supreme Court order only the above said two W.M.Ps have been filed in this Court. The respondents have not filed any counter Hence these W.M. Ps are allowed.

6. The counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a Division Bench Judgment of this Court Canara Bank Rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Staff Section (O) Madurai and Ors. v. S. Ramaswamy (W.A. No. 499 of 1991 on July 30, 1996) wherein above identical provisions , contained in the Canara Bank (Officers') Regulations were challenged. The Regulation 19(1) of the Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulations reads asfollows:-

'19(1) The age of retirement of an officer employee shall be as determined by the Board in accordance with the guide lines issued by the Government from time to time. Provided that the Bank may, at its discretion on review by the Special Committee/Special Committee as provided hereinafter in Sub-Regulation (2) retire an Officer employee on or at anytime after the completion of 55 years of age or on or at any time after the completion of 30 years of total service as an officer employee or otherwise, whichever is earlier...'

7. After considering the arguments advanced by the respective counsels and following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Senior Supdt of Post Office v. Izhar Hussain : [1989]3SCR796 and Union of India v. Shaik Ali : AIR1990SC450 , the Division Bench of this Court has Struck down the provisions of Regulation 19(1) of the Canara Bank (Officers') Service Regulationsand 19(1) of the Bank Of India (Officers') Service Regulations 1992 as identical and it is set out below:

' The age of retirement of an officer employee shall be as determined by the Board in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. Provided that the Bank may, at its discretion, on review by the Special Committee as provided hereinafter in Sub Regulation (2) retire an Officer employee on or at any time after the completion of 55 years of age or on or at any time after the completion of 30 years of total service as an officer employee or otherwise, whichever is earlier....'

In these circumstances I have no hesitation to follow the said decision and hold that the provisions contained in proviso to Regulation 19( 1) of the New Bank of India (Officers') Service Regulations Act, 1982 is invalid.

8. Even though the service particulars of the respoandents 5 and 6 who are now transposed as petitioners 1 and 2 set out in detail in the affidavit, they are not denied in the counter. Nothing prevented the respondents to file a counter in W.M.P. No. 16022 of 1995 setting out the reasons on which the Special Committee recommended the compulsory retirement of the petitioners 1 and 2 (Respondents 5 and 6). Therefore there is some justification for the grievance that they have been compulsorily retired in an arbitrary manner. Since the Regulation 19(1), has been said to be invalid and their compulsory retirement has been based on the I said proviso the respondents 5 and 6 herein are entitled to be continued in service till they attained the age of super annuation of 60 years. Hence this writ petition is allowed as prayed for. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay the consequential benefits by treating the service of the petitioners 1 and 2 (respondents 5 and 6 herein), as if they continued in service till the superannuation at the age of 60 years, There will be no order as to costs.