Judgment :-

R.V. Raveendran, J.

Leave granted. Heard.

2. The respondent was an employee of the State Bank of Patiala (Bank for short). Regulation 19 of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 provides that an officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of 58 years or upon the completion of thirty years service whichever occurs first. It also provides that an officer will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes the stipulated service or age of retirement. As respondent completed thirty years of service on 17.11.2006, the Bank made an order dated 17.11.2006 retiring the respondent with effect from 30.11.2006 under Regulation 19 of the said Regulations.

3. The Bank had formulated an Exit Option Scheme on 1.12.2005 with the object of bringing down the staff strength of the Bank by providing an exit route to eligible officers who may be demotivated due to lack of career prospects. The release of an officer from service under the said scheme becomes effective only after the approval of the request of an employee by the designated authority, is communicated to such officer. The respondent who joined the Banks service on 18.11.1976, and due to retirement on 17.11.2006, made an application dated 14.11.2006 for being relieved under the said scheme. As the said application was made hardly three days before the completion of thirty years of service, there was obviously no time to process it, and before it could be processed, he retired from service. According to the Bank, accepting such a request a few days before the due date of retirement does not arise, as there is no question of an employee feeling demotivated at that stage due to lack of career prospects.

4. Alleging that the non-acceptance of his request for being relieved under the Exit Option Scheme was illegal, the respondent made two complaints – the first dated 17.11.2006 to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, Dehradun, and a second dated 20.11.2006 to the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities, New Delhi (Chief Commissioner for short) seeking a direction to the Bank to grant him relief under the Exit Option Scheme of the bank. He claimed in the said application that he was involved in a road accident on 26.5.1997 and as a result, became a person with disability; and that the Bank, by not accepting his application for retirement under the Exit Policy Scheme, discriminated him on account of his disability.

5. The Deputy Chief Commissioner, New Delhi issued a show-cause notice dated 22.11.2006 to the Bank stating that the Chief Commissioner had directed issue of a show-cause notice under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, (Disabilities Act for short) calling upon the bank to show cause why it should not be directed to accept the respondents request under Exit Option Scheme, instead of being retired under Regulation 19, with a further direction that the decision of the Bank to retire the respondent from service should not be implemented until further orders.

6. The Bank filed objections dated 23.12.2006 contending that the complaint was not maintainable and did not have any merit. The Bank also pointed out that the show cause notice dated 22.11.2006 sent by the Dy. Chief Commissioner, was not accompanied by either a copy of the complaint or a copy of the order said to have been made by the Chief Commissioner. We are informed that the Chief Commissioner has not passed any further order in the matter.

7. On the ground that the Bank did not comply with the interim direction of Chief Commissioner, the respondent approached the Allahabad High Court on 10.1.2007 (by filing WP No. 40 (SB) of 2007) seeking a direction to the Bank to obey the order of the Chief Commissioner and a mandamus commanding the Bank and its officers (that is the Dy. General manager, Delhi Zone, Additional General Manager, III (D) Lucknow, and Branch Manag