AMRIK SINGH BAINS Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CULLED out from the pleadings of the parties, the undisputed facts are that the petitioner was a permanent employee in the Cooperative Department of the Punjab Government, when he was taken on deputation with the respondents-Bank of India bn 27. 9. 1969. He was permanently absorbed in the service of the respondents-Bank w. e. f. 14. 11. 1972. In the Cooperative Department of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the parent department) the date of retirement of the petitioner would be 58 years of age. The respondents-Bank was nationalised under the provisions of Section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act. 1970 (Act No. 5 of 1970 ). This Act came into force w. e. f. 19. 7. 1969. On the eve of nationalisation, the age of retirement of Officers in the respondents-Bank was 60 years under Section 19 (3) of the Act, the service conditions of the Officers prior to the coming into operation of the Act were protected. After nationalisation, the respondents-Bank framed Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979 in exercise of the powers under Section 19 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations" ). Regulation 19 provided as under:-

(2.) THE regulations provide two ages of retirement for the Officers of the Bank. For the Officers recruited or promoted prior to 19. 7. 1969, the age of retirement has been fixed at 60 years. For Officer recruited whether as an Award Staff or as an Officer employee on or after 19. 7. 1969, the age of retirement has been fixed at 58 years. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of absorption as contained in the letter of the respondents dated 14. 11. 1972. He had made a request that since he might have to forego his pension/retirement benefits, he should be given a suitable higher basic pay than Rs. 800-820 per month which was being paid to him at that time. This request was rejected with the observations that instead of being given, his pay drawn by him in the parent department, he had been given the benefits of bank's scale of pay with effect from the date he reported to the respondents and his increments were also regulated in terms of bank's scale of pay for Officers. Furthermore, he was given the benefit of the revised scales of pay of Offices w. e. f. 1. 1. 1970 for all intents and purposes. Therefore, he was drawing a salary in the scale of pay which was admissible to the regular Officers of the Bank. As noticed earlier, the petitioner accepted the terms of absorption as contained in the aforesaid letter. The petitioner alongwith other employees was given an option in respect of the new scales of pay i. e. either to continue in the old scale or to adopt new scale of pay. This was done after nationalisation of the Bank to achieve uniformity in the pay structure and service conditions of different banks and to improve the emoluments of Bank employees at the initiative of the Central Government. This option was given to the petitioner on 7. 7. 1990. The petitioner had exercised the option to be governed by the new regulations. The petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 1. 11. 1986. On 1. 5. 1986, he addressed a letter to respondent No. 1 for correction of date of joining in the service record. He pointed out that in the service record, his date of joining with the respondents-Bank was shown as 27. 5. 1972. In fact he had joined the service on 27. 5. 1969. This representation of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 24. 7. 1986. He was informed that the date of his joining the Bank will remain as 27. 5. 1972. Earlier by letter dated 15. 5. 1986, respondent No. 1 had already advised the petitioner that he will retire from the Bank Service w. e. f. 1. 11. 1986. He was directed to complete the formalities for payment of gratuity and, provident fund. His claim having been rejected, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the pleadings continued in the writ petition has submitted that regulation 19 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it creates an invidious discrimination in the cadre of Officers of the Bank. Officers in service of the Bank before 19. 7. 1969 are permitted to retire at the age of 60 years whereas those recruited after 19. 7. 1969 have to retire at the age of 58 years. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel has relied on the judgment rendered in the case of The Railway Board and Anr. v. A. Pitchumani, I A. I. R. 1972 Supreme Court 508. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the regulations are held to be not discriminatory, they could not be given retrospective effect and take away the accrued right of the petitioner. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Hukum Chand etc. v. Union of India and Ors. , A. I. R. 1972 Supreme Court 2427 and T. R. Kapur and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. , A. I. R. 1987 Supreme Court 415. Learned counsel then submitted that the respondents have wrongly decided that the date of absorption of the petitioner is 25. 7,1972 as he had been continuously working in the respondents-Bank from 27. 5. 1969. The petitioner had been enjoying all the benefits of Bank employee including the pay scale from 27. 5. 1969. Therefore, for all intents and purposes he had become an employee of the respondents-Bank from the date he came on deputation i. e. 27. 5. 1969. In support of this submission, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. I. Rooplal and Anr. v. Lt. Governor, A. I. R. 2000 Supreme Court 594.