Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 1098
2007(6) Supreme 303
Supreme Court of india
(From Gauhati High Court)
K.G. Balakrishanan & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
Central Bank of India & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Madan Chandra Brahma & Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 5786 of 2000
Decided on : 22-08-2007
For the Appellant :Sunil Murarka and Dinesh Mathur (for M/s J.B. Dadachanji & Co.), Advocates.
For the Respondent:Manoj Goel, Shurodeep Roy, Wajih Shafiq and Rahul Agarwal, Advocates.
important point
It is the age of superannuation in the transferee Bank that would govern the superannuation of the employees taken over by amalgamation.
Headnote:(a)Service Law – Service conditions – When one organisation merges with another, the employees are deemed to be recruited to the transferee organisation from the date of amalgamation and governed by rules prevailing at the time. (Para 7)
(b)Service Law – Service conditions – It is the age of superannuation in the transferee Bank that would govern the superannuation of the employees taken over by amalgamation. (Para 7)
(c)Central Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 19 – Providing that Employees recruited before 19.7.1969 to superannuate at 60 years and those thereafter at 58 years – Respondent no. 1 originally employed in a private bank on 9.6.1969 which got amalgamated with another bank which in turn got amalgamated in the Appellant Bank on 29.8.1990 – Therefore he would be deemed to have been recruited in the Appellant Bank on 29.8.1990 – Accordingly, he would superannuate at 58 years and not 60 years. (Para 8)
1992 (2) SCR 68; (1987)3 SCC 120 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
On 9.6.1969, Respondent No. 1 was appointed temporarily as an Assistant in Gauhati Bank. On 19.7.1969, the Central Bank (“the appellant Bank”) along with other banks was nationalized. As per the relevant Regulation, the age of superannuation was fixed as 58 years in all Nationalized Banks including the appellant Bank. On 1.8.1975, the Gauhati Bank was merged with the Purbanchal Bank wherein the age of superannuation was 58 years. Respondent No. 1, who had meanwhile been confirmed in the Gauhati Bank, had been promoted on 1.7.1975 as an officer in that Bank. On amalgamation, respondent No. 1 thus became an officer of the Purbanchal Bank with effect from 1.8.1975, the age of superannuation being 58 years. On 29.8.1990, the Purbanchal Bank merged with the appellant Bank under a Scheme of Amalgamation under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Appellant Bank was to frame Regulations with a view to bring the employees of Purbanchal Bank on a par with those of the Appellant Bank. On 6.5.1991, the appellant Bank, in terms of clause 11 of the Scheme of Amalgamation, fixed the pay and other service conditions of officers and employees of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank and made the Central Bank of India Service Regulations 1991 applicable to them with effect from 1.4.1991. Respondent No. 1, whose date of birth had been recorded as 1.8.1934, was to attain the age of 58 years by 31.7.1992. On 17.7.1992, the appellant Bank informed respondent No. 1 that he would be reaching the age of superannuation on 1.8.1992. Respondent No. 1 by his reply dated 23.7.1992, sought to dispute his date of birth. That apart, he also claimed that he would retire not on attaining the age of 58 years but only on the attaining the age of 60 years, as per Regulation 19 of the Service Regulations 1979 on the basis that his original appointment in the Gauhati Bank was on 9.6.1969 and hence he was entitled to continue in service of the appellant Bank, till he attained the age of 60 years. The appellant Bank did not accept this stand of respondent No. 1 and retired him on his attaining the age of 58 years.
Respondent No. 1 approached the High Court challenging his being retired on attaining the age of 58 years and, of course, also raising an issue about his date of birth. The learned single judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal. Setting aside the decision of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and taking note of the fact that respondent No. 1 had attained the age of 60 years as on the date of the judgment, directed the appellant Bank to pay within the time fixed by that court, all the arrears of salary and other allowances as admissible to respondent No. 1, if he were allowed to continue in service up to the age of 60 years.
Findings of the Court :
Regulation 19 of the Service Regulations of the appellant bank would be applicable considering the date of amalgamation as the deemed date of recruitment of respondent no. 1. Division Bench erred in setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.—
1.On 9.6.1969, Respondent No. 1 was appointed temporarily as an Assistant in Gauhati Bank. On 19.7.1969, the Central Bank (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant Bank”) along with other banks was nationalized. As per the relevant Regulation, the age of superannuation was fixed as 58 years in all Nationalized Banks including the appellant Bank. On 1.8.1975, the Gauhati Bank was merged with the Purbanchal Bank. The Scheme of Amalgamation between the Gauhati Bank and the Purbanchal Bank was not brought on record. Suffice it to say, that the age of superannuation in the Purbanchal Bank was also 58 years. Respondent No. 1, who had meanwhile been confirmed in the Gauhati Bank, had been promoted on 1.7.1975 as an officer in that Bank. On amalgamation, respondent No. 1 thus became an officer of the Purbanchal Bank with effect from 1.8.1975, the age of superannuation being 58 years.
2.On 29.8.1990, the Purbanchal Bank merged with the appellant Bank under a Scheme of Amalgamation under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The Appellant Bank was to frame Regulations with a view to bring the employees of Purbanchal Bank on a par with those of the Appellant Bank. On 6.5.1991, the appellant Bank, in terms of clause 11 of the Scheme of Amalgamation, fixed the pay and other service conditions of officers and employees of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank and made the Central Bank of India Service Regulations 1991 applicable to them with effect from 1.4.1991. Respondent No. 1, whose date of birth had been recorded as 1.8.1934, was to attain the age of 58 years by 31.7.1992. On 17.7.1992, the appellant Bank informed respondent No. 1 that he would be reaching the age of superannuation on 1.8.1992. Respondent No. 1 by his reply dated 23.7.1992, sought to dispute his date of birth. That apart, he also claimed that he would retire not on attaining the age of 58 years but only on the attaining the age of 60 years, as per Regulation 19 of the Service Regulations 1979 on the basis that his original appointment in the Gauhati Bank was on 9.6.1969 and hence he was entitled to continue in service of the appellant Bank, till he attained the age of 60 years. The appellant Bank did not accept this stand of respondent No. 1 and retired him on his attaining the age of 58 years.
3.Respondent No. 1 approached the High Court challenging his being retired on attaining the age of 58 years and, of course, also raising an issue about his date of birth. The learned single judge held that there was no merit in the challenge to the date of birth recorded in the records of the Bank. He further held that respondent No. 1 was entitled to continue in service only till he attained the age of 58 years in the face of the Regulations. The learned single judge, hence, dismissed the Writ Petition. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court held that even though the age of superannuation in the entry Bank, the Gauhati Bank, was 58 years and continued to be so until its amalgamation with the Purbanchal Bank and the age of retirement in the Purbanchal Bank was also 58 years, since Respondent No. 1 must be deemed to be an employee of the Central Bank right from the inception, he was entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of 60 years. It was reasoned that respondent No. 1 must be taken to be an officer recruited in the appellant Bank prior to 19.7.1969 but promoted as an officer on or after 19.7.1969 in terms of the Regulations of the appellant Bank and entitled to continue till he attained the age of 60 years. Thus, setting aside the decision of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and taking note of the fact that respondent No. 1 had attained the age of 60 years as on the date of the judgment, directed the appellant Bank to pay within the time fixed by that court, all the arrears of salary and other allowances as admissible to respondent No. 1, if he were al
