Back
2004 Supreme(Cal) 21
High Court Of Calcutta
AMITAVA LALA
SUJIT KUMAR ROY - Appellant
Versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
O. O. C. J. W. P. 2313 Of 2001
Decided On : 01/13/2004
H.K.Mitter, L.K.Gupta, S.N.PATRA BHATTA, SOUMEN DEW
An order of compulsory retirement is not a punishment and does not attract the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
AMITAVA LALA, J.: The Calcutta High Court held that the order of premature retirement of the petitioner, a Chief General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India, was not malicious, punitive, or a colourable exercise of power. The Court found that the petitioner had accepted all his retiral benefits, including the entire gratuity amount, and had invoked the writ jurisdiction to nullify the order of compulsory retirement without any stigma in such circumstances. The Court held that the petitioner was not a bona fide litigant and that the order of compulsory retirement was not passed as a punishment or with any mala fide intent.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ex-employee of the Reserve Bank of India, filed a writ petition challenging the order of his premature retirement from the post of Chief General Manager. The petitioner contended that the order was malicious, punitive, and colourable exercise of power and that the relevant provisions of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 were ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner had accepted all his retiral benefits, including the entire gratuity amount, and had invoked the writ jurisdiction to nullify the order of compulsory retirement without any stigma in such circumstances. The Court held that the petitioner was not a bona fide litigant and that the order of compulsory retirement was not passed as a punishment or with any mala fide intent.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of premature retirement was malicious, punitive, or a colourable exercise of power? 2. Whether the relevant provisions of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 were ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the order of compulsory retirement was not passed as a punishment or with any mala fide intent. 2. The Court held that the relevant provisions of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 were not ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition and vacated the interim order, if any.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed by an ex-employee of the Reserve Bank of India praying inter alia as follows: (A) A declaration that the third and fourth provisos to sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 26 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff)regulations, 1948 is null and void as it confers absolute, arbitrary and unguided powers in the Reserve Bank of India and in twin (sic) ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (B) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to give any effect and/or further effect to the purported decision/order of premature retirement of the petitioner in the post of the Chief general Manager of Reserve Bank of India, at its Regional Office at Calcutta as in annexure 'p/2' herein. (C) A further writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, to rescind the purported decision/order of premature retirement of the petitioner in the post of the Chief General Manager of reserve Bank of India at its Regional Office at Kolkata as in annexure P/2 hereto. (D) A further writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent not to fill up the post of the Chief General Manager of reserve Bank of India at its Regional Office at Kolkata. (E) A writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to certify and send up to this Hon'ble Court all records and proceeding culminating in the purported decision/order of premature retirement of the petitioner forwarded by the Chief general Manager in the charge as per his order dated October 24, 2001 or other order or orders and all records relating thereto or in connection therewith for the purpose of rendering conscionable justice by quashing set aside the said purported decision/order of premature retirement of the petitioner in the post of the Chief General Manager, reserve Bank of India at its Regional Office at Kolkata or other orders relating thereto and/or in connection therewith. (F) Any other writ or writs to which your petitioner may be found entitled; (G) A Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) above; (H) An interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from giving any effect and/or further effect to the purported decision/order of premature retirement of the petitioner in the post of the Chief general Manager, Reserve Bank of India at its Regional Office at Kolkata as in annexure 'p/2' herein, till the disposal of the rule as prayed for. (I) A further interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from filling up the post of the Chief General Manager of reserve Bank of India at its Regional Office at Kolkata till the disposal of the Rule as prayed for; (J) Ad interim order in terms of prayer (h)and (i) above; (K) Costs; (L) To pass such other or further order or orders and/or direction or directions as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY the age of retirement of the service is 55 years. The petitioner was directed to continue his service beyond such period. The date of retirement of the petitioner is April 30, 2002. The Governor of the Reserve Bank of india which includes a Deputy Governor/ executive Director with the approval of the committee of Central Board decided to retire him in the public interest with effect from october 27, 2001. Admittedly, the petitioner had (sic) withdrawn all his retiral benefits immediately before filing of the present writ petition. No monetary loss was caused for such retirement to the petitioner even the retirement was made little earlier.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Lakhi Kanta Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner the order impugned is malicious, punitive and colourable exercise of the power. Relevant part of Rule 26 of the Reserve Bank of India (Staff) Regulations, 1948 is as follows :"26. (1) An employee shall retire at 60 years of age but no extension shall be given to any employee beyond 60 years of age; provided that an employee who attains the age of superannua
