VIJAY KAMALKANT PATKAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ). IT is not necessary for us to set out in detail the pleadings as set out in the petition and the reply. It will be sufficient to set out only those facts which are necessary to dispose of the petition considering the reliefs prayed for in the petition.

(2.) THE petitioner joined the services of the respondent No. 1 as a Clerk on 1st May, 1957. On 24th August, 1984 the respondent No. 1 granted the petitioner extension of service for a period of 5 years with effect from 1st May, 1984, upon the petitioner completing the age of 50 years. It is the case of the petitioner that he gave his consent and accepted the extension granted. On 5th February, 1985 the respondent No. 1 placed the petitioner under suspension on alleged ground of irregularity. A charge-sheet was thereafter issued on 4th July, 1986. Thereafter there are various intervening circumstances which need not be adverted to, including various proceedings filed before this Court and the interim reliefs passed therein, The respondent no. 1 took a decision on 24th April, 1989 extending the period of employment of the petitioner for one more year between 24th April, 1989 to 23rd April, 1990. This was communicated to the petitioner some time in July, 1989. Once again the respondent No. 1 by a decision of 13th January, 1990 decided to grant one more year's extension to the petitioner from 24th April, 1990 to 23rd April, 1991. A similar decision was taken on 6th November, 1990 to extend it by one more year from 24th April, 1991 to 23rd April, 1992. By letter dated 23rd March, 1992 the respondent informed the petitioner that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation of 58 years of age on 23rd april, 1992 as per the existing service Rules and as the enquiry is ordered against the petitioner pursuant to issuance of charge-sheet and as the enquiry is not. likely to be concluded, the Managing Director had directed that the petitioner be continued in service till the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner even after the petitioner ceases to be in the bank's service on attaining the age of superannuation. However, the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of continuance and conclusion of the case.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings has been challenged, principally on the following grounds: - (i) Considering Regulation 19 (1) of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, the respondents could not have unilaterally extended the age of retirement of the petitioner; (ii) Even assuming that it could have been so done, the order of extension had to be communicated before the petitioner retired from service. Merely taking decision is of no consequences. In the instant case the decision to extend the petitioner's employment though taken earlier was communicated to the petitioner in July, 1989. It is this date of communication which is relevant. By that date as the petitioner was not informed that his services had been extend he is deemed to have been relieved from the service on the extended period of 5 years coming to an end. (iii) Lastly it is submitted that even if the respondents could have extended the period it could have been done before the expiry of the last date of the extended period. The last date of the extended period was 23rd april, 1989 and the same was extended only on 24th April, 1989. The learned Counsel, therefore, contends that reliefs as sought for in the petition should be granted. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (State of Assam and Ors -. v. Padma Ram borah), A. I. R. 1965 S. C. 473 to contend that after the period of service which came to an end, merely because the States Government made an order extending the services of the petitioner after a month after the last extension the State Government would have no jurisdiction to do so. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of (State of Punjab v. Khemiram)2, A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 214 to point out that mere making of an order is not sufficient. It has to be issued. In the instant case though the orders have been made on 24th april, 1989 it was communicated much after the petitioner had already retired from the service and considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgment such a communication would not extend the service of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents it was pointed out that as a grievance had been made that, the authority under Regulation 19 (3) had not taken decision they were producing the minutes of the order and have placed the same before the Court. It is also pointed out that the fact that the Managing Director had taken the decision was intimated to the petitioner by letter of 23rd March, 1992 which is annexed to the petition.