PATRICK MIRANDA Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner seeks, inter alia, the following reliefs in the above Petition,for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, order or direction quashing and setting aside the communication dated 21.02.2001 and also to direct the Respondent-Bank to accept the Voluntarily Retirement Scheme application dated 15.12.2000 of the Petitioner.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner that he joined the Indian Overseas Bank which is a Nationalised Bank as a Clerk on 26.05.1975 and he was promoted to the officer's cadre as Junior Management Scale I on 01.02.1981. Thereafter the Petitioner was promoted to the Middle Management Scale II on 01.01.1991 and at such post the Petitioner has been working up to the date of the Petition. It is further his case that there are five grades in Officers Cadre as enumerated at para 4 of the Petition. The Respondent-Bank according to the Petitioner came out with a Voluntarily Retirement Scheme for the officers and employees of the Banks which was circulated to the staff by Circular dated 02.12.2000. The scheme was valid for a period of five weeks from 15.12.2000 to 19.01.2001. The scheme was finalised in view of the process initiated by the Government of India advising the public sector banks to carry out a detailed manpower planning in order to adopt measures to have optimum human resource at various levels in keeping with the business strategies and requirements of each banks. A committee was constituted by the Bank to examine the issues of the burden of manpower and to suggest remedial measures and, consequently, Voluntary Retirement Scheme was prepared and placed before the Government to assist the Banks in their efforts to optimize the human resources. On the basis of the recommendations of the committee, the Indian Bank's Association obtained the objections from the Government of India so as to place them before the respective Boards for adopting and implementing the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. After obtaining the necessary approval from the Board, the Respondent-Bank adopted the Scheme on 25.11.2000 for implementation. Clause 4 of the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme provides for the eligibility criteria which, inter alia, contemplates that all permanent employees with 15 years of service or 40 years of age are eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the scheme and there are different categories which do not fall for eligibility for such Voluntary Retirement Scheme namely specialised Officers, who have executed service bonds, Officers serving abroad under special arrangements, employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are under suspension, employees appointed on contract basis and highly skilled and qualified employees who have been given a specialised training in the area of Credit Foreign Bank Exchange, Investment and Information Technology. Clause 4 further stipulates that the competent authority shall have absolute discretion either to accept or reject the request of the Officer/employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme depending upon the requirement of the Bank and that the reasons for such rejection shall be recorded by the authority competent. Clause 13 further provides that it will not be open to the Officers to withdraw the request made by voluntary retirement under the Scheme after having exercised such option.

(3.) Accordingly, it is the case of the Petitioner that as he had joined the services of the Bank on 26.05.1975, he had completed more than 25 years and being over 40 years of age, he was eligible to apply for such Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The Petitioner submitted the application in the prescribed form for voluntary retirement by application dated 15.12.2000 but, however, by communication dated 21.02.2001, the competent authority decided not to accept the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the Petitioner. The reason recorded by the Respondent-Bank was that considering the business/organizational requirements and administrative exigencies of the Bank, the said application came to be refused. It is further the case of the Petitioner that Officers similarly placed like the Petitioner shouldering higher responsibilities and placed in vital areas, were relieved under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. A representation was also made by the Petitioner by communication dated 10.03.2001 but, however, there was no communication from the Respondent on the representation.