REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SUJIT KUMAR ROY Appellant

V/S

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

N. C. GOENKA V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,SPECIAL BRANCH AND ORS. V. BHUPEN CHANDRA KARANJAI AND MOTI RANJAN BHATTACHARYA [REFERRED TO]
PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LTD.V. HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD. [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND ORS. V. PRANAB KUMAR GUHA [REFERRED TO]
BASHESHAR NATH VS. MODEL KNITTING INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MADEMSETTY SATYANARAYANA VS. G YELLOJI RAO [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. COLLECTOR J N SINHA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. SHYAM LAL SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV RAJ CHADHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAM EKBAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
R P MALHOTRA VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATIALA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D T C MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB [REFERRED TO]
BAIKUNTHA NATH DAS VS. CHIEF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER BARIPADA [REFERRED TO]
POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS BOARD VS. C S N MURTHY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DULAL DUTT [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. ALLAHABAD BANK [REFERRED TO]
P R DESHPANDE VS. MARUTI BALARAM HAIBATTI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SURYAKANT CHUNILAL SHAH [REFERRED TO]
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA VS. ISHWAR CHAND JAIN [REFERRED TO]
NAR SINGH PAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. LALSA RAM [REFERRED TO]
SIKKIM SUBBA ASSOCIATES VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [REFERRED TO]
JUGAL CHANDRA SAIKIA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
BIMLESH TANWAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SHAW AND CO VS. B SHAMALDAS AND CO [REFERRED TO]
LADY DINBAI DINSHAW PETIT VS. DOMINION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was filed by an ex-employee of the Reserve Bank of India praying inter alia as follows:

(2.) Admittedly the age of retirement of the service is 55 years. The petitioner was directed to continue his service beyond such period. The date of retirement of the petitioner is April 30, 2002. The Governor of the Reserve Bank of India which includes a Deputy Governor/ Executive Director with the approval of the committee of Central Board decided to retire him in the public interest with effect from October 27, 2001. Admittedly, the petitioner had (sic) withdrawn all his retiral benefits immediately before filing of the present writ petition. No monetary loss was caused for such retirement to the petitioner even the retirement was made little earlier.

(3.) According to Mr. Lakhi Kanta Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner the order impugned is malicious, punitive and colourable exercise of the power. Relevant part of Rule 26 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 is as follows :

Click here to view full judgment.

SUJIT KUMAR ROY Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address