STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. versus VINESH KUMAR BHASIN

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 22-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 6 
STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. 
v. 
VINESH KUMAR BHASIN 
(Civil Appeal No. 1718 of 2010) 
JANUARY 22, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K.S. RADHAKRtSHNAN, JJ.] 
Persons with disabilities (equal opportunities, protection 
of rights and full participation) Act, 1995: 
Applicability of the Act -Bank employee, three days prior 
to his completing the age of retirement, filing application for 
being relieved under the 'Exit Policy Scheme' of the Bank -
On the request not being accepted, employee filing 
0 
complaints before the Commissioner for Persons with 
Disabilities, Dehradun, and the Chief Commissioner for 
Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi - Employee filing writ 
petition and contempt petition before Allahabad Higl'I Court 
- HELD: The conduct of the employee requires to be 
FE commented upon - Though he retired at Dehradun, he filed 
a writ petition in Allahabad High Court to enforce an interim 
order Issued at New Delhi - He filed successive complaints, 
writ petition and contempt petition within a span of less than 
three months, without giving opportunity to the Bank to appear 
and show cause - He succeeded in evoking sympathy and 
F securing ex parte interim orders repeatedly by highlighting 
his position as a person with disability, but failed to disclose 
full or correct facts -
The grievances and complaints of 
persons with disabilities have to be considered by courts and 
authorities with compassion, understanding and expedition 
G - But the provisions of the Act cannot be pressed into service 
to seek any relief or advantage where the complaint or 
grievance relates to an alleged discrimination, which has 
nothing to do with the disability of person - Nor do all 
H 
grievances of persons with disabilities relate to discrimination 
6 
STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. v. VINESH 
7 
KUMAR BHASIN 
based on disability - The fact that the employee claimed to 
A 
be person with disability appears to have swayed the Deputy 
Chief Commissioner and the High Court, to ignore the 
absence of any legal right, and to grant an interim remedy 
which in the normal course would not have been considered 
- Issuing interim orders when not warranted, merely because 
B 
the petitioner is a person with disability, is as insidious as 
failing to issue interim orders when warranted - Administration 
of justice - Conduct of litigant - Non disclosure of correct 
facts-Interim orders. [Para 18 and 19] 
ss. 47, 58, 59, 61, 62 and 63 r/w r.42 - Power of authorities 
C 
under the Act to issue mandatory/prohibitory injunction -
HELD: Neither the Chief Commissioner nor any 
Commissioner functioning under the Act has power to issue 
any mandatory or prohibitory injunction or other interim 
directions - The fact that the Disabilities Act clothes them with 
D 
certain powers of a civil court for discharge of their functions 
(which include power to look into complaints), does not enable 
them to assume the other powers of a civil court which are not 
vested in them by the Act - In the instant case, the order of 
F 
the Deputy Chief Commissioner, not to implement the order 
E 
of retirement was illegal and without jurisdiction - Besides, the 
claimant filed application for grant of benefit of 'Exit Policy 
Scheme' three days prior to his completing the age of 
retirement- He was not entitled, as of right, to continue beyond 
thirty yeas of service - In fact, he did not want to continue in 
service, as his grievance was that he ought to have been 
permitted to retire under the 'Exit Policy Scheme' -
The 
grievance of the employee had nothing to do with his being a 
person with a disability - Prima facie neither s.47 nor any 
provision of the Act was attracted -
The Deputy Chief G 
Commissioner while issuing the ex parte direction, overlooked 
and ignored the fact that the retirement from service was on 
completion of the prescribed period of service as per the 
service regulations, which was clearly mentioned in the letter 
of retirement dated 17.11.2006, and that when an employee 
H 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20t0] 2 S.C.R. 
A was retired in accordance with the regulations, no interim order 
can be issued to continue him in service beyond the age of 
retirement - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, 
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996 - r.42 
- State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 
B -
Regulation 19 - State Bank of Pa ti ala -
'Exit Policy 
Scheme' - Interim .fnjunctio

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