MAHADEVAN Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, an officer Grade-A in the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'), has been compulsorily retired with effect from 31st December, 1987. The said order is under challenge.

(2.) The petitioner is a holder of M.Sc. Degree in Statistics. In 1952 he was appointed as Clerk Grade-II in the Bank. While he was working at the Bombay office of the Bank, he was transferred to the Trivandrum Office in 1961. He was selected and appointed as Sub Accountant in the year 1965. That post was later re-designated as 'Staff Officer Grade-A'. The petitioner availed of the facility of non transferability. On account of that, he was not eligible for and could not secure further promotions in the service. The petitioner was continuing in the Trivandrum office of the Bank. He has put in more than 35 years of service, of which for more than 21 years be bad been an Officer. When be attained the age of 55 be was found suitable to be retained in service. Accordingly, in terms of the provisos to Regulation.26(1), the Governor of the Bank, with the prior approval of the Central Board, decided that the petitioner shall continue ia service upto the age of 58. The petitioner will attain the age of 58 on 22-1-1989. By reason of the decision taken by the Governor in terms of the Provisos to Regulation.26(1), the petitioner has a right to continue in service till 22-1-1989. However, on 22-12-87 be was served with Ext. Pi letter stating that the Governor, with the prior approval of the Central Board, has decided to retire him with effect from the close of business on 31-12-87. The said letter is challenged on the ground that the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner was passed on extraneous considerations, that relevant matters were not taken into consideration, that the order is punitive in nature and that the Staff Regulations are arbitrary and violative of the principles contained in Art.14 of the Constitution.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been sworn to by a Deputy Manager, Department of Administration, Central Office, Bombay, on behalf of 1st respondent. It is averred therein that when the Sub-Accountants were upgraded as Class-I Officers and redesignated as Staff Officers Gr. II in 1970. the petitioner opted for non transferability, that the service of the petitioner could not be gainfully utilised by the Bank, that the petitioner had already passed the stage of usefulness to the Bank, that his continuance in the service would be a drain on public funds, that the proper authority formed the opinion that the petitioner had become dead-wood, that the petitioner though was not entitled to any notice or pay in lieu of notice he was offered three month's pay on compassionate grounds, that he has been retired from the service in the overall interest of the Bank, that the Bank has absolute discretion to retire an employee after he reaches the age of 50, that since the Bank has exercised such power vested in them, a writ petition to challenge such a decision is mis-conceived, that the service of the petitioner was extended beyond the age of 55 as contemplated by Regulation.26(1) and that the said extension will not confer any right on the petitioner to continue till he completes the age of 58. It is further averred that the decision was taken with the previous approval of the Committee of the Central Board after finding that the petitioner is not useful to be in service of the Bank, that the power has been exercised with bona fides, and that it is only by virtue of the discretionary powers vested in the Bank under the 3rd proviso to Regulation.26(1) the petitioner was compulsorily retired.