The Bank also pointed out that the show cause numberice dated 22.11.2006 sent by the Dy.
6124 of 2007.
Interim direction of the Chief Commissioner Under the Rules, an officer of the Bank, shall retire on companypletion of 30 years of service.
Let us deal with each of these successive ex parte interim orders.
The respondent who joined the Banks service on 18.11.1976, and due to retirement on 17.11.2006, made an application dated 14.11.2006 for being relieved under the said scheme.
The Chief Commissioner issued the order at New Delhi.
As respondent companypleted thirty years of service on 17.11.2006, the Bank made an order dated 17.11.2006 retiring the respondent with effect from 30.11.2006 under Regulation 19 of the said Regulations.
Accordingly, the retiral benefits have been released to the respondent and the companytempt proceedings were stayed on 18.8.2008.
The appropriate companyrse would have been to give an opportunity to the Bank to explain its stand, particularly because the companyrt itself felt a doubt about the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner and its own jurisdiction.
On the ground that the said ex parte order dated 12.1.2007 was number companyplied, the respondent again rushed to the High Court with a Contempt Petition.
The release of an officer from service under the said scheme becomes effective only after the approval of the request of an employee by the designated authority, is companymunicated to such officer.
The Bank filed objections dated 23.12.2006 companytending that the companyplaint was number maintainable and did number have any merit.
In case the order is number companyplied with, he shall appear on 3rd April, 2007 along with record.
Aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2007, the Bank and its officers have filed SLP C No.
No date was fixed for companypliance with the said interim order.
The Deputy Chief Commissioner, New Delhi issued a show cause numberice dated 22.11.2006 to the Bank stating that the Chief Commissioner had directed issue of a show cause numberice under the Persons with Disabilities Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995, Disabilities Act for short calling upon the Bank to show cause why it should number be directed to accept the respondents request under Exit Option Scheme, instead of being retired under Regulation 19, with a further direction that the decision of the Bank to retire the respondent from service should number be implemented until further orders.
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court in the Contempt Proceedings, the two officers of the Bank to whom numberice has been issued filed SLP Crl.
He claimed in the said application that he was involved in a road accident on 26.5.1997 and as a result, became a person with disability and that the Bank, by number accepting his application for retirement under the Exit Policy Scheme, discriminated him on account of his disability.
Chief Commissioner, was number accompanied by either a companyy of the companyplaint or a companyy of the order said to have been made by the Chief Commissioner.
On the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the High Court while directing numberice on the writ petition filed by the respondent for implementation of the interim direction of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities ought number to have issued an ex parte order which virtually amounts to allowing the writ petition without hearing the Bank.
General Manager, Delhi Zone, Additional General Manager, III D Lucknow, and Branch Manager, Dehradun who are appellants 2 to 4 herein , to pay him salary and allow him to work.
On the ground that the Bank did number companyply with the interim direction of Chief Commissioner, the respondent approached the Allahabad High Court on 10.1.2007 by filing WP No.
Alleging that the number acceptance of his request for being relieved under the Exit Option Scheme was illegal, the respondent made two companyplaints the first dated 17.11.2006 to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Dehradun, and a second dated 20.11.2006 to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi Chief Commissioner for short seeking a direction to the Bank to grant him relief under the Exit Option Scheme of the Bank.
In that petition, the High Court made an ex parte order dated 13.2.2007 directing the Branch Manager of the Dehradun Branch of the Bank to appear in person on 3.4.2007 if the interim order dated 12.1.2007 issued in the writ petition was number by then companypiled with.
The Bank had formulated an Exit Option Scheme on 1.12.2005 with the object of bringing down the staff strength of the Bank by providing an exit route to eligible officers who may be demotivated due to lack of career prospects.
The High Court on 12.1.2007 ordered numberice to the appellants and also issued an ex parte interim order that the direction of the Chief Commissioner be companyplied with, with an observation that the question of jurisdiction, if raised by the Bank, will be companysidered when the matter is next listed.
When the writ petition disclosed that the respondent was retired after 30 years of service in accordance with the Banks regulations, there was numberquestion of any irreparable injury or urgency.
According to the Bank, accepting such a request a few days before the due date of retirement does number arise, as there is numberquestion of an employee feeling demotivated at that stage due to lack of career prospects.
40 SB of 2007 seeking a direction to the Bank to obey the order of the Chief Commissioner and a mandamus companymanding the Bank and its officers that is the Dy.
The Chief Commissioner acting under the Disabilities Act, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction and the High Court in its companytempt jurisdiction, have passed ex parte interim orders, requiring the Bank and its officers to act companytrary to the Banks Rules when numberprima facie was made out.
As the said application was made hardly three days before the companypletion of thirty years of service, there was obviously numbertime to process it, and before it companyld be processed, he retired from service.
The order retiring the respondent was number passed by the Branch Manager and obviously he was number the officer who companyld implement the interim direction of theChief Commissioner or the High Court.
The respondent, though retired in accordance with the rules of the Bank, using the tag of person with disability, has attempted to virtually terrorise the Bank and its senior officers by initiating a series of proceedings and securing ex parte interim orders by misrepresenting the facts.
The respondent was an employee of the State Bank of Patiala Bank for short .
The respondent was working at Dehradun and was retired from service at Dehradun.
Regulation 19 of the State Bank of Patiala Officers Service Regulations, 1979 provides that an officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of 58 years or upon the companypletion of thirty years service whichever occurs first.
No.1870 of 2007.
Ordinarily this Court would number interfere with an ex parte interim order of the High Court, as the respondent in a writ or companytempt proceedings can appear and seek vacation, or discontinuance, or modification of such ex parte order.
It also provides that an officer will retire on the last day of the month in which he companypletes the stipulated service or age of retirement.
V. RAVEENDRAN J. 1.
Leave granted.
Heard.
