RAVINDER RAJ Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order passed by respondent No.1 retiring the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.12.1993 on attaining the age of 58 years. According to the petitioner the retirement age of the petitioner is guided by the circular dated 13.7.1970 according to which the petitioner should have been allowed to continue and retire at the age of 60 years.

(2.) The petitioner, who appears in person before me, during the course of his arguments submitted that the conditions of service of the petitioner including the age of retirement are governed by various circulars issued by the respondent No.1 whereunder the age of retirement of the petitioner holding the post of Personnel Officer has been laid down to be 60 years. According to petitioner the change brought about by the provisions of regulation 19(1) of 1979 Regulations of respondent No.1 is not applicable to the petitioner as there is no resolution of the Board as required under regulation 19(1) of the said regulations accepting 58 years as the age of retirement so far the petitioner is concerned, and therefore, the circular dated 13.7.1970 would continue to operate, according to which the age of retirement of the petitioner is 60 years. It was further submitted that the guidelines of the Central Government relied upon by respondent No.1 as laying down the age of retirement of the petitioner was issued under the proviso to regulation 19(1). Therefore, the petitioner submitted that any guideline issued in respect of the proviso to regulation 19(1) can only regulate compulsory/ premature retirement and not the retirement on superannuation. It was also submitted that there is no material whatsoever on the basis of which the petitioner could be retired prematurely in public interest at the age of 58 years particularly when the procedure necessary for such premature retirement was not followed by respondent No.1. It was also submitted by the petitioner that regulations of 1979 cannot apply to the petitioner as such regulations can not be given retrospective operation in view of the fact that the petitioner joined the respondent company in the year 1974, during which period the circular dated 13.7.1970 was applicable and holding the field entitling the petitioner to continue till his age of superannuation at 60 years, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be divested of a vested right. The petitioner also assailed the order of retirement of the petitioner on superannuation at the age of 58 years on the ground that the same is inoperative in view of the principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation of the petitioner to continue in service after 58 years of age.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, who has drawn my attention to the various circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs as also the guidelines issued by the said Ministry which have been placed on record. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 also placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in B.S.Yadav & Another Vs. Central Bank of India & Others; reported in AIR 1987 SC 1706 and also on an un-reported decision of the Madras High Court in N. Govindarajulu Vs. The Management of Union Bank of India & others; writ petition No.5486/1980 decided on 20.11.1986.