STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR & OTHERS versus JAG MOHAN LAL

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1026 · Decided: 13-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.L. OZA · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ •, 
' 
A 
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR & OTHERS 
V, 
JAG MOHAN LAL 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1988 
B 
[G,L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETI'Y, JJ,] 
Labour and Services: State Bank offlikaner & Jaipur (Officers) 
Service Regulations, 1979: Regulation No, 19--Extension of Service 
beyond age of superannuation-Whether discretionary, 
c 
Regulation 19(1) of the State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur (Officers') 
Service Regulations 1979 requires the officers to retire from the service 
of the Bank on attaining the age of fifty-eight years or on completion of 
•, 
thirty years of service whichever occurs first. A note added below that 
regulation- states that the existing practice of utilising the service of 
officers beyond 58 years will continue in respect of those who joined 
!..__ 
D 
service before 19th July, 1969. The proviso thereto, however, confers 
discretion on the competent authority to extend the period of service of 
such retiring officers in the interest of the hank, 
., 
The respondent, an officer of the said Bank, who retired from 
service on September 30, 1982 on attaining the age of superannuation of 
E 58 years was not granted extension of service. He sought relief from the 
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Bank resisted the 
Petition on the ground that his continued utility in the service of the 
Bank was found restricted. By the time the petition came up for consi-
deration the respondent had attained 60 years of age. The Single Judge, 
therefore, dismissed the petition without going into the merits. The 
F 
Division Bench, however, accepted the appeal and gave relief to the 
respondent on the view that the extension of the petitioner could have 
been refused only if he was found unsuitable on the ground of continued 
utility or good health or integrity and not whether it was desirable in the 
interest of the Bank. Since the Bank applied a different criteria 
altogether it held the order arbitrary and based on collateral grounds. 
G 
Allowing the appeal of the Bank by Special Leave, 
HELD: I. I The High Court has misconstrued the legal right 
,{
claimed by the respondent. [1031B] 
'f j 
H 
L2 In the scheme provided in Regulation 19(1) an officer of the 
1026 
) 
•·· 
~ 
., 
STATE BANK OF BIKANER v. JAG MOHAN 
1027 
Bank has a legitimate right to remain in service till he attains the age of 
superannuation. But ·beyond that age, he has no such right unless his 
service is extended by the Bank. The further rights of parties are 
regulated by the proviso thereto. [1031F-G] 
•, 
1.3 The proviso preserves discretion to the Bank. It is a discre· 
thin avail~ble with every ·employer, every management, State or 
otherwise . .If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is 
desirable in the interest of the Bank, it may allow him to continue 
in service beyond the age of superannuation. If the Bank considers· 
that the service Of, an officer is not required beyond superannuation, 
it is an end of the matter. It is no reflection on the officer; It carries no 
stigma. [1032C-Dl 
State of Assam v. Basanta Kumar Das, [1973] 3 SCR 158; Kai/ash 
Chandra v. Union of India, [1962] I SCR 374; B.N. Mishra v. State, 
[1965] l SCR 693 and State.of Assam v. Pramadhar, [1971] l SCR 503, 
referred to. 
2. The Bank, however, is required to consider the case of 
individual officers with due regard to (i) continued utility, (ii) good 
health, and (iii) integrity beyond reproach of the officer. If the officer 
lacks one or the other, the bank)s not bound to give him extension of 
service. [10320-E) 
In the instant case the Bank had shown to the High Court that the 
case of the respondent was considered and he did not tit in the said 
guidelines. The High Court does not sit in an appeal against that 
decision. The High Court under Article 226. cannot review that 
decision. l1032E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3175 
of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.1985 of the Rajasthan 
High Court in D.B.S.A. No. 161of1985. 
Satish Chandra and A.V. Rangam for the Appellants. 
-V.M. Tarkunde and S.K. Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1028 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] Supp. 2 S .C.R. 
A 
JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. By obtaining special leave, the 
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur ("Bank") has appealed to this Court 
against the judgment dated September 17, 1985 of the Division Bench 
of Rajasthan High Court in Special Civil Appeal No. 161of1985. The 

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