SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 402

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Vs.
D. HANUMANTHA RAO
Decided on March 27, 1998

A legal fiction created for a specific purpose cannot be extended beyond that purpose to other service conditions.

Headnote:

EXTENSION OF SERVICE - STATE BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS SERVICE RULES, 1971 - RULE 19(1) - EMERGENCY COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND SHORT SERVICE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (RESERVATION OF VACANCIES) RULES, 1971 - RULE 6 - INTERPRETATION - LEGAL FICTION - PURPOSE - RETIREMENT AGE - EXTENSION OF SERVICE.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a Short Service Commissioned Officer (SSC) in the army, was appointed as a Probationary Officer with the State Bank of India (SBI) in 1972. He claimed that his date of entry in service should be treated as 26/10/1965, based on the benefits of seniority, pay, and pension granted to him considering his army service. He sought extension of service beyond the age of 58 years under Rule 19(1) of the SBI Officers Service Rules, which allowed for such extension in certain cases.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the benefit of earlier army service granted to the respondent under Rule 6 of the Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1971, was limited to seniority, pay, and pension. The legal fiction created for this purpose could not be extended to other service conditions, including extension of service. The Court relied on a communication from the Government of India clarifying that the retirement age for ex-SSCs reappointed in public sector banks after nationalization would be 58 years, despite the back-dated seniority granted for promotion and pay fixation.

Issues: 1. Whether the respondent's date of entry in SBI service should be treated as 26/10/1965, considering the benefits granted for his army service. 2. Whether the respondent was entitled to extension of service beyond the age of 58 years under Rule 19(1) of the SBI Officers Service Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The legal fiction created under Rule 6 of the 1971 Rules, granting benefits for army service, was limited to seniority, pay, and pension. 2. The fiction could not be extended to other service conditions, including extension of service. 3. The Government of India's clarification confirmed that the retirement age for ex-SSCs in public sector banks would be 58 years, despite back-dated seniority.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgments of the learned Single Judge and the division bench of the High Court were set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed.

( 1 ) SPECIAL leave granted.

( 2 ) THE only question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether Respondent I, D. Hanumantha Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent"), is entitled for extension of service after his attaining the age of 58 years under Rule 19 (1 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Service Rules") which provides as under:

"19. (1 An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of fifty-eight years or upon the completion of thirty years service or thirty years pensionable service if he is a member of the Pension Fund, whichever occurs first: Provided that the competent authority may, at its discretion, extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of fifty-eight years or has completed thirty years service or thirty years pensionable service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank, so however, that the service rendered by the officer concerned beyond 58 years of age except to the extent of the period of leave due at that time will not count for purpose of pension: Provided further that an officer who had joined the service of the Bank either as an officer or otherwise on or after 19-7-1969 and attained the age of 58 years shall not be granted any further extension in service. "

( 3 ) THE respondent was a Short Service Commissioned Officer (for short "ssco) in the army. After his release from the army, he was appointed as a Probationary Officer with the State Bank of India on 1/7/1972 against the reserved quota. Under Rule 19 (1 of the Service Rules, an officer retires on attaining the age of 58 years or on completion of thirty years service, whichever occurs first. Under the first proviso, the competent authority can extend the period of service of an officer, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank. Under the second proviso, suchextension cannot be granted to an officer who joined the service of the Bank on or after 19-7-1969. The case of the respondent is that in view of Rule 6 of the Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1971 Rules") which is applicable to the State Bank of India and in view of the memorandum dated 21/9/1993, after taking into account his army service, the respondent was given the benefit of seniority, pay and pension with effect from 26/10/1965 and since the said benefits have been extended to the respondent with effect from 26/10/1965, his date of entry in the service of the State Bank of India has to be treated as 26/10/1965 and that the second proviso to Rule 19 (1 would not be applicable in his case and he would be entitled to be considered for grant of extension of service under the first proviso to Rule 19 (1. The said contention of the respondent was accepted by the learned Single Judge of the A. P. High court and the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed and the appellant was directed to consider the case of the respondent for extension of service in accordance with the first proviso to Rule 19 (1 of the Service Rules. The letters patent appeal filed by the State Bank of India against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been dismissed by the division bench of the High court by the impugned judgment.

( 4 ) SHRI Gopal Subramaniam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank, has submitted that the High court was in error in proceeding on the basis that the date of entry of the respondent in service should be treated as 26/10/1965 and not 1/7/1972. The submission is that by legal fiction, the respondent was given the benefit of the earlier army service and for the purpose of seniority, pay and pension he was treated as if appointed in the service of the Bank with effect from 26/10/1965. The submission is that the said fiction could not be extended for any other pur



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top