MUNDRIKA DUBEY AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 21-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008} 3 S.C.R. 163 
t'. 
MUNDRIKA DUBEY AND ORS. 
A 
.,, 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1468 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 21, 2008 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.) 
.... 
... 
Service Law: 
Retirement - Compulsory retirement - Of Appellants-
"' 
Class IV employees - By Respondent-Bank - Justification of 
\.., 
- Held: Justified under r.235 which provided for compulsory 
retirement in the Bank's interest - Respondent-Bank was not 
only heavily over-staffed but also running into huge losses -
Substantial pruning of employees was required for its survival 
- In any event, it is not for this Court to opine as to who should D 
be retained in service and who should be retired and at what 
stage and situation as this is a matter to be left to the exclusive 
discretion of the employer - Bihar Raj ya Shakari Bhumi Vikas 
Bank Samiti (Rules) - rr. 232 and 235. 
Appellants-Class IV employees were comp1;1lsorily E 
retired by Respondent-Bank vide order purportedly 
passed under Rules 232 and 235 of the Bihar Rajya 
Shakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (Rules). They filed writ 
•• 
petitions before the High Court which were dismissed . 
F 
.... 
In appeal to this Court the contention of the 
Appellants is that Rule 235 on which the respondents had 
placed reliance for dispensing with the services of the 
appellants by way of compulsory retirement was not in 
fact a source of power as it only dealt with the payment of G 
gratuity and provident fund to a certain category of 
employees and that it was only under Rule 232 that an 
employee could be compulsorily retired and that too on 
the ground of inefficiency and as it was not the case of 
163 
H 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
1 
A the respondent-Bank that the appellants were inefficient, 
.., 
the impugned action of the Bank was unjustified. The 
Appellants further contended that they had put in more 
than 30 years of service with the Bank and if any re-
structuring was to be made so as to make Bank's working 
B more efficient, it would have been appropriate to dispense 
with the staff atthe top i.e. senior officers of the Bank rather 
• 
than the low paid Class IV employees such as the 
.. 
appellants. 
Per contra, Respondents contended that Rule 235 
c was itself the source of power and operated in a field 
different from Rule 232 and that it was not for this Court 
to interfere so as to determine as to which employee 
should be retrenched first, and who later, as this was a 
matter for the internal administration of the Bank. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Concededly the action against the 
appellants has not been taken under Rule 232 which deals 
with the compulsory retirement of an employee who has 
E put in 21 years of duty and 25 years of total service if it is 
considered that the efficiency or the conduct of the 
employee does not justify his retention in service. Rule 
235 however talks about compulsory retirement in the 
Bank's interest of those who have reached the age of 50 
F years and have completed 30 years of service and also 
)l. 
talks about the benefit of contributory provident fund and 
gratuity, as admissible to such employees. Undoubtedly, 
action under Rule 232 can only be taken if the employee 
concerned is inefficient or is guilty of misconduct 
G whereas the scope of Rule 235 is much wider and 
compulsory retirement can be ordered in the Bank's 
interest. The fact that the two Rules operate in different 
fields is also clear from the varying qualifying service and 
that those who retire under Rule 235 are given some 
H 
additional financial benefits as a solatium for having to 
r 
MUNDRIKA DUBEY AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 
165 
"' 
AND ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.] 
go despite the fact that their efficiency has in no manner A 
been impaired and merely because Rule 235 also talks 
about the payment of contributory provident fund and 
gratuity it does not take away the right to retire 
compulsorily those who have reached the age of 50 years 
• 
and have completed 30 years of service and whose B 
.. 
retirement is in the Bank's interest. Therefore the 
action taken was justified under Rule 235. [Para 8] 
[165-C, D, E, F, G] 
2. It is not for this Court to opine as to who should be 
retained in service and who should be retired and at what c 
stage and situation as this is a matter to be left to the 
exclusive discretion of the employer. The facts of the case 
show that the Bank was not o.nly heavily over st

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