Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN
United Bank Of India (Now Punjab National Bank) – Appellant
Versus
Swapan Kumar Mullick – Respondent
The judgment explicitly addresses the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. It states that courts should refrain from assessing the merits of policy decisions made by legislative or executive authorities, and their power is limited to examining whether such policies or regulations are within the scope of the authority's power, whether they transgress constitutional limits, or whether they are arbitrary or manifestly arbitrary. The judgment emphasizes that courts do not have the jurisdiction to declare a rule or regulation ultra vires solely on the ground that the policy is flawed, unwise, or ineffective, as this falls within the domain of the policy-making authority.
Furthermore, the judgment clarifies that the courts' role is to ensure that the regulation or rule is made within the bounds of the law and constitutional limits, not to substitute their judgment for that of the legislature or executive on policy matters. It explicitly mentions that the power under Article 226 cannot be exercised to direct the legislature or executive to enact or amend laws or regulations, which are executive functions based on policy decisions.
Therefore, the judgment affirms that a high court cannot declare a rule ultra vires solely on the basis that the rule or regulation is flawed or unwise without a challenge to the law's validity or without examining whether the rule exceeds the constitutional or statutory authority. The court's review is limited to procedural and constitutional bounds, not to the merits of policy or the wisdom of the regulation.
This reasoning confirms that the judgment does answer the question: a high court cannot declare a rule ultra vires merely because the rule is not challenged or because it considers the policy flawed; such decisions are beyond the scope of judicial review under the constitutional framework described.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and key facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's examination of applicable precedents. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. analysis of arguments from both parties. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court's final determinations and conclusions. (Para 33 , 34 , 50 , 51 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
THE APPEALS
B) The Board of Directors of the United Bank of India shall consider amendment of Regulation 22 of the United Bank of India (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 according to the circular of the Indian Banks Association dated 30th June, 2015 with or without retrospective effect within 3 months of physical communication of this order.
C) The appellant bank by constituting an authority shall determine by 21st October, 2020 upon giving an opportunity to Mullick to place facts and adduce evidence before it whether he could be treated as having voluntarily retired from service, strictly following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shashikala case reported in (2014) 16 SCC 260 read with UCO Bank & Ors. Vs. Sanwar Mal reported in (2004) 4 SCC 412 and Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.
(1) Resignation and Voluntary Retirement are different – Employees resigning from service and employees retiring from service voluntarily constitute two different classes – Treating two classes diffe....
The judgment established the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, upheld the disqualification of pensionary benefits in case of resignation, and emphasized that the petitioner kn....
Resignation under CCS Pension Rules Rule 26 forfeits past service, barring pensionary benefits to employee or family despite service rendered; distinct from voluntary retirement; no retrospective app....
Employees who opt for voluntary retirement under a scheme are bound by the terms of the scheme, which may exclude certain pension benefits.
(1) Application for voluntary retirement cannot be rejected de hors statutory regulations.(2) after voluntary retirement, there shall not be an employer-employee relationship and subsequent proceedin....
Failure to communicate refusal of voluntary retirement application within three months results in deemed acceptance, upholding the Tribunal's award for retirement benefits.
(1) There is distinction between “resignation” and “voluntary retirement” – Though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently.(2) When legislature, in its wisdom, brings forth certain bene....
Resignation from service entails forfeiture of past service unless it qualifies as a 'Technical Resignation' under specific conditions, which were not met in this case.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
