Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the retirement of an employee, Respondent No. 1, from the Central Bank of India at the age of 58, as per the bank's regulations. Respondent No. 1 had been appointed temporarily as an Assistant in the Gauhati Bank in 1969, which was nationalized in 1969, and later merged with the Purbanchal Bank in 1975. The age of superannuation was fixed at 58 years for both banks. After the Purbanchal Bank merged with the Central Bank in 1990, Respondent No. 1's date of birth was recorded as 1.8.1934, indicating he would reach 58 years by 31.7.1992. The appellant Bank informed him of his retirement on 1.8.1992, which he contested, claiming he should retire at 60 years based on his original appointment. The High Court initially ruled in favor of Respondent No. 1, allowing him to continue until 60 years, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision. The court reasoned that the applicable regulation indicated that employees recruited after 19.7.1969, including those from amalgamated banks, were subject to the 58-year retirement age. The court also noted that the age of superannuation was consistently 58 years across the banks involved, and thus Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to the relief claimed. However, the court awarded him Rs. 1 lakh ex gratia for the time spent in litigation, clarifying that this was not a precedent. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's decision was set aside.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Age of Superannuation - Applicability of Retirement Age - Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Regulation 19 - The court held that the respondent was bound to retire at the age of 58 years as per the applicable regulations, rejecting the claim for extension to 60 years based on prior service. The interpretation of the regulations indicated that the age of superannuation was consistently 58 years across the relevant banks involved (Paras 6-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent was entitled to continue in service until the age of 60 years based on his prior appointment and promotion in the Gauhati Bank.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision. It held that the respondent was bound to retire at the age of 58 years as per the applicable regulations and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1 lakh ex gratia to the respondent within three months.
Law Points
- Age of superannuation
- amalgamation of banks
- service regulations
- interpretation of regulations
