D.C. AGGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 27-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. SRIKRISHNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
D.C. AGGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. 
APRIL 27, 2006 
B 
[B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Service law-Banking services: 
State Bank of India Officers Service Recruitments Regulations-
C Regulation 17-Promotion--Jn Top Executive grade-Structured and formal 
interview conducted by Departmental Committee-Committee found employee 
unfit for promotion based on his performance at interview-Consequently 
promotion declined by Bank-Employee challenged the decision of Bank 
alleging bias against him in view of previous litigations between the parties-
D Held: Allegation of bias not tenable since the Committee did not include any 
officer involved in the previous litigations-Moreover, answers given by 
employee to questions put before him by the Committee suggest that either he 
was incapable of answering them or that he was deliberately filibustering the 
interview-Jn either event, he did not deserve to be promoted. 
E 
State Bank of India Service Rules-Rule 15-Extension of service beyond 
the age of superannuation--Grant of-Is discretion of the employer-No right 
vested in an employee to demand extension. 
State Bank of India Service Rules-Rule 15-Extension of service beyond 
the age of superannuation--Claim disallowed by a Committee which took the 
F decision after going through the entire service record of the employee and 
after scanning through his Annual Confidential Reports-Held: The decision 
of Committee was fair and objective-Allegation that there was institutional 
bias against the employee which affected the decision of the Committee not 
acceptable in/acts and circumstances of the case-Extension had been refused 
G for good reasons and was not liable to be interfered with by the Single Judge 
of High Court in its writ jurisdiction--Constitution of India, 1950---Article 
226--Writ jurisdiction-Invocation of---Scope. 
State Bank of lndia--Bank disallowed claim for promotion and extension 
of service by employee-High Court upheld decision of Bank-Meanwhile 
fl 
390 
D.C. AGGARWAL°(DEAD) BY LRS. v. STA TE BANK OF INDIA 
39] 
claimant diecl---'-His Legal Representatives (LRs) came up in appeal before this A 
· Court'-Entitlement of the LRs to claim monetary relief-Held, not entitled-
Even ·if the deceased employee was to succe~din his appeal, the most favourable 
order for him could have been a direction to the Bank to ·reconsider his case 
for promotion and extension-Even with such a direction, the Bank was not 
bound to grant either of his claims-Thus, there is no question of monetary 
relief being granted to his legal heirs. 
Appellant, a Deputy General Manager in Respondent-bank in the 
Top Executive Grade Scale VI (TEGS VI) claimed promotion to the post 
of General Manager (TEGS VIij. The claim was rejected by the Bank after 
B 
an Interview Committee found the Appellant unfit for promotion. C 
Appellant filed writ petition challenging the action of Respondent-bank 
which was allowed .by a Single Judge of the High Court. 
Meanwhile, Appellant sought extension ofservice by two years. The 
claim was not granted and consequently he retired from service. Appellant 
challenged the decision of Respondent-bank declining grant of extension D 
by filing a writ petition which was allowed by a Single Judge of High 
Court. 
The Division Bench of High Court however set aside the judgment 
of the Single Judge in both the promotion and extension matters holding 
that the action of the Respondent-Bank was not liable to be interfered with E 
on any ground. Hence the present appeals in which it was inter alia 
contended that both the claims of Appellant were rejected on account of 
bias against him in view of the previous litigations between the parties. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The Interview Committee noted that the Appellant had 
been under suspension from 21.7.1981to12.11.1987 and his service upto 
21.7.1981 only had to be taken into consideration for appraisal of the past 
performance of the Appellant in the same manner as had been done for 
other eligible officers. Considering the case of the appellant on each of G 
the relevant dates, the Committee found that although the appellant had 
obtained 60% marks for "performance appraisal", his performance at the 
interview was very poor as tie had obtained only 25.7% marks. Thus; on 
each of the relevant dates, the Committee was of the view that his case 
could not be considered for promotion to TEGS VII. The H

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.