STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. D HANUMANTHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The only question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether respondent No. 1, D. Hanumantha Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') is entitled for extension of service after his attaining the age of 58 years under Rule 19(1) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Rules) which provides as under:-

(3.) The respondent was a Short Service Commissioned Officer (for short 'SSCO') in the Army. After his release from the Army, he was appointed as a Probationary Officer with the State Bank of India on July 1, 1972 against the reserved quota. Under Rule 19(1) of the Service Rules an officer retires on attaining the age of 58 years or on completion of thirty years' service whichever occurs first. Under the first proviso the competent authority can extend the period of service of an officer should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank. Under the second proviso such extension cannot be granted to an officer who joined the service of the Bank on or after July 19, 1969. The case of the respondent is that in view of Rule 6 of the Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Rules') which is applicable to the State Bank of India and in view of the Memorandum dated September 21, 1993, after taking into account his Army Service, the respondent was given the benefit of seniority, pay and pension with effect from October 26, 1965 and since the said benefits have been extended to the respondent with effect from October 26, 1965, his date of entry in the service of the State Bank of India has to be treated as October 26, 1965 and that the second proviso to Rule 19(1) would not be applicable in his case and he would be entitled to be considered for grant of extension of service under the first proviso to Rule 19(1). The said contention of the respondent was accepted by the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to consider the case of the respondent for extension of service in accordance with the first proviso to Rule 19(1) of the Service Rules. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State Bank of India against the said judgment of the learned single Judge has been dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment.