JUDGMENT

JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. : — By obtaining special leave, the State Bank of Bikaner and 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. 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.

2. The respondent was an officer of the Bank. His service conditions were regulated by what is termed as State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. The regulations came into force, with effect from October 1, 1979. Regulation No. 19 provides for the age of retirement. It also preserves discretion to the Bank to extend the period of service of any officer beyond the age of retirement 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 completion of -thirty years service, whichever occurs first.

Note: However, the existing practice of utilising the service of officers beyond the age of 58 years by considering individual cases for grant of extension will continue 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 reemployment as is the case in the State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Saurashtra. A suitable diary note should be made in this regard and carried over at intervals, to ensure that this factor is not overlooked at the time when the cases of employees who joined on or after 19th July, 1969 come up for consideration (RER/32/80 dated 20-5-1980).

Provided that the competent authority may, at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of fiftyeight years or has completed thirty years service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank."

3. The aforesaid note to Regulation 19 refers to the existing practice in the Bank and that note was added by notification dated May 20, 1980.

4. 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 completed 58 years of age. By further letter dated July 1, 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. Accordingly, he was retired from service with effect from September 30, 1982.

5. After an unsuccessful attempt for I reconsideration of the case, the respondent took up the matter before Managing Director of the Bank. There also he could not succeed. He was informed that his case did not fit in the guidelines of the Bank.

6. The respondent moved the High Court for relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The Bank resisted the petition contending inter alia :

"The extension is considered on three parameters

(i) continued utility;

(ii) good health, and

(iii) integrity beyond reproach.

since, in the case of the officials whose names have been submitted in the List D, all the three tests have been fulfilled, their services were extended. In the case of the petitioner, his services were not extended because in the view of the competent authority, his continued utility in the service of the Bank was -found to be restricted. It is submitted that it is not open to the petitioner to claim that he should be granted extension in the service as a matter. of right. In this context, it is submitted that when orders were issued to the petitioner on the 4th February, 1981 posting him as Branch Manager of a local branch of Jaipur, the petitioner instead of acting in a responsible manner and taking over charge of the branch, immediately proceeded on leave and went on extending it from time to time. Ultimately, the respondent Bank had to cancel the posting