JOSE VELHO PEREIRA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis for a period of one year as a field Officer in the respondent Bank on a consolidated pay of Rs. 400/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioner entered into a contract of service dated 25th July, 1967, which remained in force for one year from 25th July, 1967. The said contract of service was later on renewed twice, first on 3rd August, 1968 and thereafter on 25th August, 1969. The said contracts provided that on expiry of one year the same would stand terminated. On 19th July, 1968, the Government of India nationalized 14 major private sector banking institutions, including the respondent Bank. Thereafter, the respondent Bank was reconstituted into a Government of India undertaking. Subsequent to the nationalization of the respondent Bank, the petitioner was appointed in permanent service as a probationary Accountant/officer, Grade IV, with effect from 6th August, 1970. At that time, another contract of service was entered into between the parties. The conditions of the services of the petitioner are now governed by the Canara Bank (Officers ) Service Regulations 1979, which were framed under section 19 read with section 12 (2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970. Regulation 19 (1) of the said regulations states that the age of retirement of an officer employed shall be determined by the Board in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time-to-time. Regulation 3 (c) defines Board as Board of Directors of the Bank. Annexure 6 of the said Regulations contains guidelines regarding the age of retirement of the officers of the respondent Bank and they are to the following effect :-

(2.) IT is the petitioner s case that he was born on 15th may, 1935, and that since he joined the service before 19th july, 1969, the age of his retirement under the provisions of Annexure 6 would be 60 years. Accordingly, the due date of the petitioner s retirement is 31st May, 1995. The petitioner however, found that in the office record the date of his retirement was shown as 31st May, 1993, which, according to him, is not correct. The petitioner apprehending that, he would be retired on 31st May, 1993, filed this petition on 12th April, 1993, praying for a direction to the respondent Bank that he shall be retired on 31st May, 1997 and not before that date. He further prayed for quashing the direction of the respondent Bank fixing the date of his retirement as 31st May, 1993 in the letter dated 5th March, 1992.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondent Bank, its Law Officer has filed affidavit stating that the petitioner was recruited as a Bank employee on 6th August, 1970, and that as the petitioner was recruited after 19th July, 1969, the age of retirement in his case would be 58 years.