Alok Gupta v. State Bank of India & Ors.

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? I U D G M E N T ARUNA SURESH. I. (Oral)

1. Appellant, (plaintiff) was employed in State Bank of India. He joined the services of the Bank on 20.8.1958 as a Money Tester. The appellant was bom on 1.1.1939. However, as per the bank record, his date of birth is recorded as 10.1.1939. Appellant was granted first extension upto 9.1.1994 by the RSA 163/2009 Page lof[9] 2009:DHC:10188 bank on 4.11.1988 as per the State Bank of India Officer's Service Rules contained in State Bank of India Officers Service Order 1979, on his completing 30 years of service. These rules were revised vide circular No. PER 13:90 dated 19.4.90 and extension of service of an officer was to be considered at two stages i.e. firstly, on the officer attaining the age of 55 years; secondly, on the officer attaining the age of 58 years. The revised instructions were made effective from 1.4.90 i.e. the case of an officer for grant of extension in service or otherwise falling due on or before 1.4.90 was to be considered under the revised instructions. The case of the appellant was considered for grant of extension before 1.4.90 i.e. in the year 1988 itself as per the then existing rules. The revised instructions were not made applicable by the bank to the appellant and he was not granted extension as per the revised rules dated 19.4.90. Since appellant felt that he was denied extension arbitrarily against the principles of natural justice, he filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against the defendants. RSA163/2009 Page 2 of[9] z

2. The trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 14.2.2004 was pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff/appellant. Appellant assailed the judgment and decree of the trial court in appeal being RCA No.86/2002. However, appeal also faced the same fate and was dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 25.8.2009. Hence, this second appeal.

3. Appellant has raised three substantial questions of law, which according to him arise for consideration in the appeal. They are

Matriculation Certificate" proved by the respondents themselves before the Trial Court could be ignored by the courts below to take a contrary view that the date of birth as per bank's record is 10.01.39 and not 01.01.39?

RSA 163/2009 the appellant U/0.41 R.27 for production of additional evidence in view of admission made by the respondents in their RTi ACT reply Letter dated 19.01.09?"

4. The State Bank of India Officer's Service Rules contained in State Bank of India Officers Service Order 1979, which were in existence and were applicable to the appellant at the relevant time, when he was granted first extension on 4.11.1988 have been dealt with by the trial court while deciding issue No.2 and affirmed by the appellate Court. Under the said Rules, officers attaining the age of 50 years or completing 30 years of pensionable service or officers attaining the age of 55 years or officers attaining the age of 58 years were eligible for consideration of extension of their service. Appellant was granted first extension upto 9.1.1994 on 4.11.1988 when he had completed 30 years of service as per the first rule. Thus, appellant enjoyed first extension as per the then existing rules.

5. As per Clause 19(1) of SBI Officer Service Rules, an RSA 163/2009 Page 4 of[9] officer would retire from the service of the bank on attaining the age of 58 years or upon the completion of 30 years of service or 30 years of pensionable service, if he is the member of pension funds, whichever occurs first. However, the Competent Authority has the discretion to extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of 58 years or has completed 30 years of service, if such extension is deemed desirable in the interest of the bank. However, service rendered by the concerned officer who has been granted extension beyond 50 years of age except to the extent of period of leave due at that time would not count for the purpose of pension.

6. Appellant had completed 30 years of service in the year 1988. His case was considered for extension upto 55 years of age as per the then existing instructions and accordingly his service was extended upto 9.1.1994. Appellant attained the age of 55 years on 9.1.1994. It was the discretion of the competent authority of the Bank to consider the case of the appellant for extension and appellant RSA163/2009 Page 5 of[9] had no right to seek automatic extension upto the age of 58 years. In his case, bank did extend the services ofthe appellant upto 55 years ofage. The purpose of giving extension in service has to be in the interest of the bank i.e. to promote interest of the bank and not to confer any benefit on the retiring officers, though, ultimately, such an extension might benefit the retiring officer.

7. Thus, it is clear that appellant had no statutory right to seek extension of his services for another three years i.e. upto the age of 58 years. The Appellate Court in the impugned order observed that Circular No.PER-13.90 revised the instructions and reduced the extension of service from three stages to two stages but there is no retrospective effect to the same. Obviously, appellant was governed by the old rules by virtue of which he was granted one extension.

8. The trial court while deciding issue No.2, as upheld by the appellate court in the impugned order, observed:- RSA 163/2009 Page 6 of[9] (S

9. Mr. Alok Gupta learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the date of birth of the appellant is 1.1.39 and not 10.1.39 as recorded in the service record of the appellant available with the bank. The fact remains, when the appeiiant was given first extension on 4.11.1988 upto 9.1.1994, appellant did not produce any document about the correctness of his date of birth nor sought any correction in the RSA163/2009 Page 7of[9] official record. It is pertinent that if the date of birth of the appellant is considered as 1.1.39 then, he would have attained the age of superannuation upon completion of extended period of service on 31.12.1993. Rather, appellant enjoyed the service for another ten days as he retired on 9.1.1994 on completion of first extension of his service.