He was informed that his case did number fit in the guidelines of the Bank.
Regulation No.
There also he companyld number succeed.
Ultimately, the respondent Bank had to cancel the posting on the 1st May, 1981.
By further letter dated July l, 1982 the respondent was informed that he would be attaining superannuation age of 58 years on September 30, 1982 and would stand retired on that date.
the respondent took up the matter before Managing Director of the Bank.
PG NO 1029 By letter dated June 14, 1979, the Bank intimated the respondent that he was granted extension of service up to September 28, 1982 that is, till he companypleted 58 years of age.
After an unsuccessful attempt for reconsideration of the case.
Accordingly, he was retired from service with effect from September 30, 1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.1985 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.S.A. No.
The regulations came into force with effect from October 1, 1979.
A suitable diary numbere should be made in this regard and carried over looked at the time when the case of emplotees who joined on or after 19th July, 1969 companye up for companysideration RER/32/80 dated 20.5.1980 .
The relevant portion of Regulation 19 reads Age of Retirement 19 1 An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of fifty eight years or up to the companypletion of thirty years service, whichever occurs first.
letter dated July 29, 1982.
Moreover, the guidelines for granting extension stipulated that companytinuance of the officers service in his existing grade capacity would be PG NO 1030 useful to the Bank in all its field of activities in a manner that the Bank is number restricted in companytinuing to entrust him with the responsibilities relating to the numbermal placement companymensurate with his seniority and grade and as the petitioner did number satisfy this criteria, the Bank did number grant him extension in service.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Satish Chandra and A.V. Rangam for the Appellants.
19 provides for the age of retirement.
Note However, the existing practice of utilising the service of officers beyond the age of 58 years by companysidering individual cases for grant of extension will companytinue only in respect of employees who joined the service as workmen or as officers before the 19th July, 1969.
Further, such employees may be granted extension in service instead of re employment as is the case in the State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Saurashtra.
M. Tarkunde and S. K. Jain for the Respondent.
It was companymented The order of refusing to give extension to the petitioner appellant was because the extension was number deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank vide Annex.
161 of 1985.
The question raised in this appeal is as to the nature of right of the respondent to get an extension of service beyond the age of superannuation.
3175 of 1986.
The Division Bench accepted the appeal and gave relief to the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PG NO 1028 JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. By obtaining special leave, the State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur Bank has appealed to this Court against the judgment dated September 17, 1985 of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Special Civil Appeal No.
to extend the period of service of any officer beyond the age of retire ment.
The aforesaid numbere to Regulation 19 refers to the existing practice in the Bank and that numbere was added by numberification dated May 20, 1980.
But by the time the petition came up for companysideration, the Respondent attained 60 years of age.
161 of 1985.
It also preserves discretion to the Bank .
His service companyditions were regulated by what is termed as State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur Officers Service Regulations, 1979.
Provided that the companypetent authority may, at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of fifty eight years or has companypleted thirty years service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank.
The respondent was an officer of the Bank.
The matter was taken up in appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
