VASUDEVA K S Vs. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is an employee of the respondent-bank and who had sought for voluntary Retirement in a Scheme envisaged by the respondent-Bank, has approached this court invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ in the nature of declaration declaring that the sub-clause (j) of Clause 10 of the bank's Voluntary retirement Scheme circulated by the Staff circular No. 121/2000-2001 (Annexure-B to the Writ Petition) is illegal, unconstitutional and unenforceable and consequently to quash the communication dated February 27, 2001 by which the bank had advised the petitioner to comply with the requirement of the said clause.

(2.) SRI Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Clause 10 (j) which is one of the general conditions required to be complied to accept an application for voluntary retirement and which requires an applicant who is an office bearer/director of state Bank of Mysore Employees' Housing Cooperative Society/co-operative Credit society/employees' Consumer Co-operative society, to furnish a 'no Objection'/'no Due certificate' from the respective society is a condition which has no relevance to the scheme of voluntary retirement and the object of permitting the employee to seek retirement before superannuation and as such, is an unreasonable and arbitrary condition. Learned counsel submits that the said clause is violative of Articles 14, 16 (1), 19 (l) (g) and 21 of the constitution of India, being an arbitrary condition and having the effect of imposing unreasonable restrictions on the right of an employee to seek voluntary retirement provided under the Scheme. It is also submitted that the said clause has not been approved by the Board of Directors which envisaged the scheme but has been inserted by the administration who function under the Board of Management and as such, it cannot form part of the scheme.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the Voluntary retirement Scheme is offered by the Bank in a scheme proposed by it. What conditions and stipulations should be provided taking into factual circumstances and reality prevailing in the particular bank are all considerations within the realm of the Management of the Bank. It is not for this Court to sit in judgment over various conditions stipulated under the scheme unless the particular clause is totally repugnant to the scheme of the Voluntary Retirement and defeats the very purpose. The clause with which the petitioner is aggrieved is one under which persons seeking for Voluntary retirement are required to produce 'no objection certificate' from the Employees' housing Co-operative Society if the person happens to be an office bearer or the Director of the Society. The Society itself having been formulated for the benefit of the employees of the Bank and comprising of only employees and ex-employees of the Bank and the office bearers of the Society having control over the financial affairs of the said Society, it cannot be said that a clause of this nature is on the face of it obnoxious or imposes any unreasonable conditions on a person seeking Voluntary retirement and has the effect of defeating the object of seeking Voluntary Retirement itself.