COL V J BALREDDY Vs. ANDHRA BANK REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a retired Colonel, his name was recommended by the Director, Sainik Welfare, Hyderabad for suitable appointment in the Respondent Bank. The petitioner was interviewed by the Chairman, Banking Services Recruitment Board, Madras with certain other members comprising the Interviewing Committee. The petitioner was appointed as a Security Officer on a consolidated salary of Rs. 1600/- along with TA and DA applicable to officers of the Respondent Bank in Medium Management Grade -1 (MMG) Scale. The appointment was contractual in nature and was for a fixed term of one year w.e.f., 19-9-1984. The petitioner was again appointed in 1985,1986,1987 and 1988 on contractual basis for one year duration. The petitioner left on 4-1-1988 even before the contractual period expired and again came back and requested appointment which was granted to him on similar terms as above on annual contract basis. The petitioner made representations for revision of pay through his letter dated 26-6-1989 and the same was recommendedby the 3rd respondent Assistant General Manager. The 2nd respondent also by his letter of 6-11-1990 recommended to the Chairman and Managing Director for Revision of pay and allowances to the petitioner. On 27-10-1993 again representation was made by the petitioner for revision of his pay-scales. However, no revision was allowed nor any orders passed on the representations made by the petitioner, instead the petitioner was issued an order dated 6-12-1993 stating that he will be released from service on 21-12-1993 i.e., the date of expiry of contract period. The petitioner has assailed the said order dated 6-12-1993 as arbitrary and sought directions for fixing the pay-scales as per the Government of India instructions in respect of Ex-servicemen from the date of the petitioner's appointment.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the' respondents by the Personnel Manager of the Respondent Bank. It is stated therein that the petitioner's appointment was purely temporary and was on tenure basis for a period of one year. The petitioner's appointment was not one as per the regulation governing employees for recruitment which is made by the Banking Services Recruitment Board (BSRB). The question of termination, it is stated does not arise as the period of appointment was contractual it expired by efflux of time and the question of continuing the petitioner upto the age of superannuation does not arise.

(3.) Before we take up the consideration of the contention as to pay-scales payable to the petitioner during his tenure of his service with the Respondent Bank, let us consider the contention with regard to continuation of the petitioner in service till the attaining of age of superannuation of 60 years. This is in context of the relief claimed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6-12-1993.