LexCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MADAN CHANDRA BRAHMA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. A v. MADAN CHANDRA BRAHMA AND ANR. AUGUST 22, 2007 [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J.] B Service Law: Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979-Regulation 19-Clause 1.3-Retirement age-Respondent promoted as an officer in 1975 C in Gauhati Bank-Gauhati Bank merged with Purbancha/ Bank and respondent became Officer of Purbanchal Bank-On 19. 7.1969, Purbanchal Bank merged with appellant-Bank under Scheme of amalgamation-Appellant- Bank retired him on his attaining 58 years-Writ petition by respondent seeking retirement on attaining age of 60 years-Allowed by High Court- D Correctness of-Held: High Court erred in holding that respondent was entitled to continue in service till the age of 60 years-As respondent was recruited only after 19.7.1969, Clause 1.3 of Regulation 19 would apply-- Respondent bound to retire on attaining age of 58 years hence not entitled to relief claimed by him-However, in the circumstances and in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, he deserves to be E compensated as he had been fighting on question of interpretation of Regulation and had remained in courts for considerable time, due to divergence in the views of the High Court-Appellant directed to pay sum of Rs. I /akh to respondent as ex gratia-Banking Regulation Act, 1949-s.45(7)- Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142. F On 9.6.1969, Respondent No.I was appointed temporarily as an Assistant in Gauhati Bank. On 19. 7.1969, the appellant Bank alongwith other Banks were nationalized. On 1.8.1975, the Gauhati Bank was merged with Purbanchal Bank. The age of superannuation in the Purbanchal Bank was 58 years. Respondent No.I who had meanwhile been confirmed in the Gauhati G Bank, had been promoted on 1.7.1975 as an officer in that Bank. On amalgamation, respondent No. 1 thus became an officer of the Purbanchal Bank with effect from 1.8.1975. On 29.8.1990, the Purbanchal Bank merged with the appellant Bank under a Scheme of Amalgamation under the Banking 275 H 276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 9 S.C.R. A Regulation Act, 1949. Respondent No.I claimed that he would retire only on attaining the age of 60 years, as per Regulation 19 of the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations 1979 on the basis that his original appointment in the Gauhati Bank was on 9.6.1969. The appellant Bank did not accept this stand B of respondent No. 1 and retired him on his attaining" the age of 58 years. Respondent no.I filed writ petition before the High Court and it was allowed. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court C HELD: 1. The High Court was in error in holding that respondent No. I was entitled to continue in service in the appellant Bank till he attained the age of 60 years and was entitled to monetary benefits on tha.t basis. On a plain reading of Regulation 19 of the Central Bank of Indfa (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979, respondent No. 1 was bound to retire on attaining the age D of58 years. (Para 8) (283-El 2. The respondent No. 1 became an officer of the appellant Bank only on the amalgamation of the Purbanchal Bank with the appellant Bank. Admittedly, that was on 29.8.1990, well after 19.7.1969. Strictly speaking, respondent No. I was not recruited in the appellant-Bank, ifthe expression E 'recruited' occurring in the Regulation is literally c-0nstrued. But obviously the expression includes those who have become officers of the appellant Bank by way of amalgamation or merger. Respondent No. 1 could be deemed to have been recruited to the service of the appellant Bank only after 19.7.1969. If so, it would be clause 1.3 of R!!gulation 19 that would apply and not clause 1.2 of that Regulation. (Para 6) (281-BJ F 3. t. The age of superannuation both in the Gauhati Bank and the Purbanchal Bank, which subsequently got amalgamated with the appellant Bank, was only 58 years. The notification sanctioning the amalgamation under Section 45(7) of the Banking Regulation Act is dated 29.8.1990. Clause 10 G provides that employees like the respondent are deemed to have been appointed by the appellant Bank on the same terms and conditions of service as were applicable to them before the close of business on 14.7.1990. They were to be granted the same pay as employees of the appellant Bank and were to hold office on the same terms and conditions of service that are applicable to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.