STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. VINESH KUMAR BHASIN
LAWS(SC)-2010-1-65
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
January 22,2010
STATE BANK OF PATIALA,ARVIND BHUSHAN PANDEY
Appellant
VERSUS
VINESH KUMAR BHASIN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ALL INDIA INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK SC AND ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]Cited Judgements :-
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD. VS. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULE CASTES & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-355] [REFERRED TO]SHALINI SETHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-9-53] [REFERRED TO]
NAREDDY RENUKA VS. N P D C OF T G AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-6-76] [REFERRED]
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-122] [REFERRED TO]
PREMLAL, S/O BRIJLAL KANWAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(CHH)-2019-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI RAM SON OF RAMCHARAN NAI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2016-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
SADASHIV DNYANDEO GAIKWAD VS. BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRICIY SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT [LAWS(BOM)-2020-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. USHA GANGARIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-185] [REFERRED TO]
HASSAN THERMAL POWER PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-9-116] [REFERRED TO]
RAM COLLEGE OF COMMERCE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA WANCHOO VS. STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-8-249] [REFERRED TO]
SURVEYOR GENERAL SURVEY OF INDIA, SURVEYOR GENERAL VS. N CYRUS [LAWS(KAR)-2018-1-366] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR COOPERATIVE TRAINING, CHANDIGARH VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, NEW DELHI [LAWS(P&H)-2020-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
M ROSY VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE VS. SMT. SUMITRA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(KAR)-2016-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. SHAKUNTALA DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2023-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
JAIKISHAN AGGARWAL (BLIND) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-171] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MAHIPAL KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-203] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-570] [REFERRED TO]
COUNCIL FOR ADVANCEMENT OF PEOPLES ACTION & RURAL TECHNOLOGY (CAPART) VS. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-425] [REFERRED TO]
BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY AND TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING VS. SADASHIV DNYANDEO GAIKWAD [LAWS(BOM)-2020-8-179] [REFERRED TO]
AMBEDKAR UNIVERSITY OF DELHI VS. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-281] [REFERRED TO]
TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. P. RAMESH [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-80] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED VS. RAKESH KUMAR NANGLU [LAWS(P&H)-2011-8-77] [REFERRED TO]
Y S VIJAYA VS. UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI [LAWS(APH)-2012-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR BILASPUR VS. AJIT P K JOGI [LAWS(SC)-2011-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
TECNIMONT ICB PVT LTD VS. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR VS. MR. KARAM VIR SINGH RANGI & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-83] [REFERRED TO]
OFFICE REFERENCE VS. R.B. TRIPATHI AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-229] [REFERRED TO]
GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY VS. KAMAL KANT AGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2015-3-588] [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF TOWN PLANNERS VS. COUNCIL OF ARCHITECTURE [LAWS(DLH)-2012-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SH. RAM KISHORE MEENA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-118] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R.V. Raveendran, J. -
(1.)Leave granted. Heard.
(2.)The respondent was an employee of the State Bank of Patiala (Bank' for short). Regulation 19 of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 provides that an officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of 58 years or upon the completion of thirty years service whichever occurs first. It also provides that an officer will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes the stipulated service or age of retirement. As respondent completed thirty years of service on 17.11.2006, the Bank made an order dated 17.11.2006 retiring the respondent with effect from 30.11.2006 under Regulation 19 of the said Regulations.
(3.)The Bank had formulated an 'Exit Option Scheme' on 1.12.2005 with the object of bringing down the staff strength of the Bank by providing an exit route to eligible officers who may be demotivated due to lack of career prospects. The release of an officer from service under the said scheme becomes effective only after the approval of the request of an employee by the designated authority, is communicated to such officer. The respondent who joined the Bank's service on 18.11.1976, and due to retirement on 17.11.2006, made an application dated 14.11.2006 for being relieved under the said scheme. As the said application was made hardly three days before the completion of thirty years of service, there was obviously no time to process it, and before it could be processed, he retired from service. According to the Bank, accepting such a request a few days before the due date of retirement does not arise, as there is no question of an employee feeling demotivated at that stage due to lack of career prospects.
(2.)The respondent was an employee of the State Bank of Patiala (Bank' for short). Regulation 19 of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 provides that an officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of 58 years or upon the completion of thirty years service whichever occurs first. It also provides that an officer will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes the stipulated service or age of retirement. As respondent completed thirty years of service on 17.11.2006, the Bank made an order dated 17.11.2006 retiring the respondent with effect from 30.11.2006 under Regulation 19 of the said Regulations.
(3.)The Bank had formulated an 'Exit Option Scheme' on 1.12.2005 with the object of bringing down the staff strength of the Bank by providing an exit route to eligible officers who may be demotivated due to lack of career prospects. The release of an officer from service under the said scheme becomes effective only after the approval of the request of an employee by the designated authority, is communicated to such officer. The respondent who joined the Bank's service on 18.11.1976, and due to retirement on 17.11.2006, made an application dated 14.11.2006 for being relieved under the said scheme. As the said application was made hardly three days before the completion of thirty years of service, there was obviously no time to process it, and before it could be processed, he retired from service. According to the Bank, accepting such a request a few days before the due date of retirement does not arise, as there is no question of an employee feeling demotivated at that stage due to lack of career prospects.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.