2006 Supreme(SC) 408

2006(5) Supreme 127
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
B.N. Srikrishna and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
D.A. Aggarwal (Dead) by LRs. — Appellant
versus
State Bank of India & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 959-960 of 2000
Decided on 27-4-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Sandeep Parekh, Rajeev Mishra (for M/s. P.H. Parekh & Co.) Advocates.
For the Respondents : Rekesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Vimla Sinha, Abhishek Chaudhary, Gaurav Bhatia, Ms. Shubra Kapur, Rajiv Kapur and Ms. Arti Singh, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no right vested in bank employee to demand an extension beyond the age of fifty eight years. Non extension of service is no reflection on the calibre of the officer and it carries no stigma.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW — State Bank of India Rules — Rule 15 — Removal from service — On challenge, alteration of punishment to demotion by two grades — Non consideration for promotion — Non extension of service upto the age of sixty years — Appellant had joined respondent bank as Probationary Officer on 15.1.1960 — He got repeated promotions during the period 1960-1980, reaching upto Top Executive Grade Scale VI as a Deputy General Manager — On 4.1.1981, appellant was posted as Deputy General Manager of respondent bank at Chandigarh — On 8.7.1981, appellant’s explanation was called for in respect of some irregularities pertaining to his work — He was placed under suspension — On challenge, Central Vigilance Commission appointed an enquiry officer who exonerated appellant of most of the major charges — Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of demotion by two grades on appellant — Appellant was relegated to Middle Management Scale IV — Appellant joined the demoted post and was transferred to Bhopal but appellant did not join — During this period, appellant was not considered for promotion to the post of General Manager — On challenge, enquiry against appellant was quashed — Appellant was transferred to Hyderabad as Deputy General Manager, but he refused to join there as a matter of protest — Subsequently, appellant was posted at Chandigarh once again — He retired w.e.f. 10.9.1993 after working as Deputy General Manager and died in 2005 — Whether legal heirs could be granted the monetary benefits — (No).

       Held : We agree with the impugned judgment of the High Court that no fault could be found with the Interview Committee when they assessed the performance of the appellant to be poor. We have seen the record and the three questions that the Committee put to the appellant. Answers to those three questions would have demonstrated the depth of knowledge the appellant had in his professional field. The answers given by him to the questions asked, suggest that either he was incapable of answering them or that he was deliberately filibustering the interview. In either event, he did not deserve to be selected by the Interview Committee. No fault can be found with the decision of the Interview Committee or with the decision of the respondent-bank that the appellant was not fit for promotion to TEGS VII.(Para 24)

       If the bank considers that the continuance of services of an officer is desirable in the interest of the bank, it may allow him to continue beyond the age of superannuation. If the bank considers that the service of the officer is not required beyond the age of superannuation, that is the end of the matter. Further, non-extension of service is no reflection on the calibre of the officer and it carries no stigma. It appears to us that these principles were not kept in mind by the learned Single Judge when he interfered with the discretion of the respondent-bank not to grant an extension to the appellant.(Paras 28 and 29)

       There is another issue that precludes any relief being granted to the appellant. As a matter of fact, the appellant retired from service on 9.9.1993 and died in 2005. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though the appellant had died, his legal heirs could be granted the monetary benefits on the footing that the appellant was entitled to get extension of service by two years and was also entitled to promotion to TEGS VII. In our view, both these contentions are unsustainable. Even if the appellant were to succeed in his appeal, the most favourable order for him could have been a direction to the respondent-bank to reconsider his case for promotion to TEGS VII as also to reconsider extension of his service beyond the age of fifty-eight years. Thus, even with such a direction, it would not have been possible for us to say that the respondent-bank was bound to grant either of the appellant’s claims. Thus, there is no question of monetary relief being granted to the legal heirs of the appellant.(Para 30)