DON WIMALASIRI DISSANAYAKE

DON WIMALASIRI DISSANAYAKE
V
 PEOPLE'S BANK & OTHERS

S.GANASIRI
V
 PEOPLE'S BANK & OTHERS

P.P.S .SUMANAWEERA
V
PEOPLES BANK & OTHERS
AND
S.H. COLOMBAGE
V
PEOPLE'S BANK & OTHERS

SUPREME COURT
DR.SHIRANI A.BANDARANAYAKE, J.
N.E.DISSANAYAKE, J. AND
RAJA FENANDO, J.
SC/FR 53/2005
SC/FR 70/2005
SC/FR 226/2005
SC/FR 258/2005
May 01st2006
May 30th 2006
May 31st2006
June 21st 2006

Constitution - Article 12(1) - Fundamental Rights - Right to equality - All persons are equal before law-Legitimate expectation - Procedural fairness and rules of natural justice - Giving reasons as an essential element in administrative justice

The petitioners were all employees of the 1st Respondent bank and their common complaint is that the Bank had refused to grant their extensions of services in

terms of the Bank Circular 323/2001 and thus infringed their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(2) of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court granted the petitioners leave to proceed for the alleged violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12(1) of the Constitution in all five applications.

Held:

Raja Fernando,J.with Nimal Dissanayake,J. (agreeing)

(1) The Petitioners could not have entertained legitimate expectation of being in service on extension of their services beyond 55 years as they have failed to show that they have qualified for extensions of their services under the criteria set out in the circular, it is only if the petitioners have successfully established that they have qualified for extention of their services under the circular beyond the age of 55 years, then only the respondent will be required to give reasons to court explaining the non-grant of the extention.

(2) Merely because certain employees were singled out for favoured treatment by wrongly applying the circular, that alone would not entitle the petitioners to be similarly treated. If one does not show that he or she is qualified under the criteria set out in the circular his legitimate expectation would have been to retire at the age of 55 years which is the standard or normal retiring age.

(3) As the petitioners have failed to establish a right to be extended in service, the questions of the respondent giving reasons for non - extension will not arise. Hence there is no obligation for the respondents to explain the reasons for the non - extensions in the cases in issue.

(4) Merely because certain employees were singled out for favoured treatment by misapplying the circular, that itself would not entitle the petitioners to be similarly treated. The petitioners cannot seek extension of their services on the basis that the Circular had been misapplied or, misconstrued in respect of other employees. The petitioners cannot take advantage of the arbitrary decisions of the management and misapplications of the Circular to their advantage.

(5) All circulars and other documents which come within the scope of and meaning of the law for purpose of Article 12(1)mustbe applied fairly and equally to all persons to whom they apply.

(6) By failing to apply the Circular related to this application in a uniform manner and in selectively granting favoured treatment to certain employees of the Bank by misapplying the Circular (No.323 /2001), the 1st Respondent Bank and its management had infringed the rights of equality before the law and the equal protection of the law enshrined in Article 12(1) of the Constitution.

Per Raja Fernando, J.

"What the Petitioners have sought to achieve in their applications is to construe the misapplication of the Circular to their advantage rather than give effect to the clear provisions of the Circular and to take advantage of the arbitrary decisions of the management made by disregarding the provisions of the Circular."

Held:

Dr. Shirani A.Bandaranayake.J. (dissenting)

(7) Although there may not be a requirement for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document