JOHN SERAPHIN Vs. STASTE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts in nutshell are that petitioner working with the State Bank of India, in accordance with Annexure - 4, the policy dated December 29, 2000, proposing voluntary retirement scheme submitted his application for voluntary retirement. It appears that certain explanation etc. were called from the petitioner as he was found involved in some irregularity with Port Steel Complex (P.) Ltd. By communication dated March 2, 2001 (Annexure 1) the petitioner was informed that he was ineligible because exoneration order in the case of Port Steel Complex (P.) Ltd. at Boring Road was pending for want of Corporate Centre's concurrence. The petitioner came to this Court and the respondents on notice filed their show-cause. The respondents submit that in accordance with Annexure-4 providing the criteria, the petitioner was ineligible because an explanation was sought for from the petitioner and final orders in the matter were not passed. It is also submitted by the respondents that as a matter of policy the Bank has held that the people who were below 55 years of age when the policy was in force their applications for voluntary retirement would not be accepted. According to the respondents, as the petitioner was not eligible either under the original voluntary retirement scheme or under the policy of the Bank, the Bank was justified in refusing to accept the application for voluntary retirement.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that rejection of the petitioner's application seeking voluntary retirement was not on the ground that he was below 55 years of age and therefore, the said ground cannot be pressed into service at this stage. It is also submitted by him that the order of exoneration was already passed but it was pending concurrence by the Corporate Centre. According to him, if the delay is on the part of the department or the establishment the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer.

(3.) Undisputedly, Annexure-1, letter No. G/1192, dated March 2, 2001 is not on the basis of the said policy of the Bank. It does not say that the petitioner being below 55 years of age would not be entitled to seek voluntary retirement. If that be so, a ground which could justify the order cannot be projected later if that is not the foundation for issuing the order.