Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :- The petitioners in these writ petitions filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India have prayed for a declaration that R. 3 of the Rules for Age of Retirement contained in Annexure I to the Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) framed under Regn. 19(1) of the Regulations is unconstitutional and void, and to direct the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) to fix the age of retirement of all the officers of the Bank uniformly at 60 years. They have further prayed for the quashing of the Order dated 25-2-1980 issued by the Chief Manager of the Bank at its Regional Office, New Delhi retiring petitioner No. 1, B. S. Yadav from service as being illegal and unconstitutional and for a declaration that petitioner No. 1, B. S. Yadav continues or shall be deemed to be in the service of the Bank till he attains the age of 60 years with consequential benefits. The petitions are filed by B. S. Yadav, who was working as an officer of the Bank and the All India Central Bank Employees Federation.

2. The Bank came to be established under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which the banking business of 14 banking companies was nationalised. At the commencement the process of nationalisation of these banks was not smooth-sailing. On the Government of India taking a decision to nationalise the banking business of 14 banking companies the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance 8 of 1969 was promulgated by the President on July 19, 1969. The Ordinance provided for the acquisition and transfer of the undertakings of certain banking companies which were 14 in number in order to serve better the needs of development of the economy in conformity with the national policy and objectives and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Under the Ordinance 14 corresponding new banks were established. The Bank which is involved in these cases is the corresponding new bank of the Central Bank of India Ltd. which was one of the banking companies whose undertaking was taken over under the Ordinance. The corresponding new banks were authorised to carry on and transact the business of banking as defined in Cl. (b) of S. 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and also to engage in one or more forms of business specified in sub-s. (1) of S. 6 of the Act. The Chairman of the banking company whose business was taken over holding office immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance was appointed as the custodian of the corresponding new bank. The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs and business of the corresponding new bank was vested in the custodian who was to be the Chief Executive Officer of that bank. The above Ordinance was replaced by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 22 of 1969. The constitutional validity of both the Ordinance and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 was questioned before this Court. in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCR 530 : (AIR 1970 SC 564). By the decision rendered in the said case this Court declared the Ordinance and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act 22 of 1969 as invalid and the action taken or deemed to have been taken in exercise of the powers under them was unauthorised. The above judgment of the Court was pronounced on February 10, 1970. The effect of the judgment was that the undertakings of the 14 banking companies, whose business had been acquired by the Central Government under the authority of the above said Ordinance and the Act, reverted to the banking companies. With a view to resuming control over the business of those banking companies, the President again promulgated on February 14, 1970 the Banking Companies (A