ivil Appeal No 3175 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 1781985 of the Rajasthan High Court in DBSA No 161 of 1985
Satish Chandra and AV Rangam for the Appellants
VM Tarkunde and section K Jain for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PG NO 1028 JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
By obtaining special leave the State Bank of Bikaner  Jaipur Bank has appealed to this Court against the judgment dated September 17 1985 of the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Special Civil Appeal No 161 of 1985
The question raised in this appeal is as to the nature of right of the respondent to get an extension of service beyond the age of superannuation
The respondent was an officer of the Bank
His service conditions were regulated by what is termed as State Bank of Bikaner  Jaipur Officers  Service Regulations 1979
The regulations came into force with effect from October 1 1979
Regulation No 19 provides for the age of retirement
It also preserves discretion to the Bank 
to extend the period of service of any officer beyond the age of retire ment
The relevant portion of Regulation 19 reads Age of Retirement 191 An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attaining the age of fifty eight years or up to the completion of thirty years  service whichever occurs first
Note However the existing practice of utilising the service of officers beyond the age of 58 years by considering individual cases for grant of extension will continue only in respect of employees who joined the service as workmen or as officers before the 19th July 1969
Further such employees may be granted extension in service instead of re employment as is the case in the State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Saurashtra
A suitable diary note should be made in this regard and carried over looked at the time when the case of emplotees who joined on or after 19th July 1969 come up for consideration RER3280 dated 2051980
Provided that the competent authority may at its discretion extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of fifty eight years or has completed thirty years  service as the case may be should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank
The aforesaid note  to Regulation 19 refers to the existing practice in the Bank and that note  was added by notification dated May 20 1980
PG NO 1029 By letter dated June 14 1979 the Bank intimated the respondent that he was granted extension of service up to September 28 1982 that is till he completed 58 years of age
By further letter dated July l 1982 the respondent was informed that he would be attaining superannuation age of 58 years on September 30 1982 and would stand retired on that date
Accordingly he was retired from service with effect from September 30 1982
After an unsuccessful attempt for reconsideration of the case
the respondent took up the matter before Managing Director of the Bank
There also he could not succeed
He was informed that his case did not fit in the guidelines of the Bank
The respondent moved the High Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution
The Bank resisted the petition contending inter alia The extension is considered on three parameters i continued utility ii good health and iii integrity beyond reproach
since in the case of the officials whose names have been submitted in the list D all the three tests have been fulfilled their services were extended
In the case of the petitioner his services were not extended because in the view of the competent authority his continued utility in the service of the Bank was found to be restricted
It is submitted that it is not open to the petitioner to claim that he should be granted extension in the service as a matter of right
In this context it is submitted that when orders were issued to the petitioner on the 4th February 1981 posting him as Branch Manager of a local branch at Jaipur
the petitioner instead of acting in a responsible manner and taking over charge of the branch immediately proceeded on leave and went on extending it from time to time
Ultimately the respondent Bank had to cancel the posting on the 1st May 1981
Moreover the guidelines for granting extension stipulated that continuance of the officer s service in his existing gradecapacity would be PG NO 1030 useful to the Bank in all its field of activities in a manner that the Bank is not restricted in continuing to entrust him with the responsibilities relating to the normal placement commensurate with his seniority and grade and as the petitioner did not satisfy this criteria the Bank did not grant him extension in service
 But by the time the petition came up for consideration the Respondent attained 60 years of age
The learned single Judge without going into the merits of the matter dismissed the petition
He observed that it would be unnecessary to enter into the merits since the respondent has completed 60 years
The matter was taken up in appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court
The Division Bench accepted the appeal and gave relief to the respondent
It was commented The order of refusing to give extension to the petitioner appellant was because the extension was not deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank vide Annex
letter dated July 29 1982
Hence it is obvious that while considering the case of the petitioner the Bank took into consideration the criteria whether his extension shall be desirable in the interest of the bank and the 13ank did not apply its mind as to whether his services were found unsuitable on the ground of continued utility and health or integrity
It appears that the Bank keeping in mind the note which was added to sec
191 and only relying on the first proviso Resolution 191 they have decided the case of petitioner for extension of service This clearly shows that there was no serious application of mind while dealing with the case of extension of the petitioner is based on collateral grounds and it also arbitrary as the Bank has applied different criteria which ought not to have been applied in the case of the petitioner
The Bank has not formed the opinion for not extending the services of the petitioner on any material or relevant consideration but has applied in the different criteria altogether and therefore
the order is based on collateral and arbitrary grounds
The extension of the petitioner could have been refused only if he was found unsuitable on the ground of continued utility or good health or integrity and not whether it was desirable in the interest of the Bank  And observed PG NO 1031 It is true that the right of extension of service is not a legal right but it is a benefit
However this benefit is not a concession but is a privilege to which an officer is entitled after years of hard work in the Bank
 It seems to us that the High Court has misconstrued the legal right claimed by the respondent
The right to get extension of service beyond the age of superannuation has received consideration of this Court in several cases
In State of Assam vs Basanta Kumar Das l973 3 SCR 158 after reviewing almost all the earlier decisions Kailash Chandra vs Union of India   BN Misra vs State  and State of Assam vs Pramadhar  this Court said at 165 A Government servant has no right to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation and if he is retained beyond that age it is only in exercise of the discretion of the Government
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx the fact that certain persons were found fit to be continued in service does not mean that others who were not so found fit had been discriminated against
Otherwise the whole idea of continuing only efficient people in service even after they had completed 55 years becomes only meaningless
 What do we have here in this case to distinguish those principles or not to apply those principles In our opinion there is none
In the scheme provided herein the respondent or any other officer of the Bank has a legitimate right to remain in service till he attains the age of superannuation
But beyond that age he has no such right unless his service is extended by the Bank
The further rights of parties are regulated by the proviso to Regulation 191
It reads Provided that the competent authority may at its discretion extend the period of service ot an officer who has attained the age of fifty eight years or has completed thirty years  service as the case may be should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank  Emphasis supplied PG NO 1132 Look at the language of proviso and the purpose underlying
The Bank may in its discretion extend the service of any officer
On what ground For what purpose That has been also made clear in the proviso itself
It states should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank
The sole purpose of giving extension of service is therefore to promote the interest of the Bank and not to confer any benefit on the retiring officers
Incidentally the extension may benefit retired officials
But it is incorrect to state that it is a conferment of benefit or privilege on officers
The officers upon attaining the age of superannuation or putting the required number of years of service do not earn that benefit or privilege
The High Court has completely misunderstood the nature of right and purpose of the proviso
The proviso preserves discretion to the Bank
It is a discretion available with every employer every management State or otherwise
If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is desirable in the interest of the Bank i may allow him to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation
If the Bank considers that the service of an officer is not required beyond superannuation it is an end of the matter
It is no reflection on the officer
It carries no stigma
The Bank however is required to consider the case of individual officers with due regard to i continued utility ii good health and iii integrity beyond reproach of the officer
If the officer lacks one or the other the Bank is not bound to give him extension of service
In this case the Bank has shown to the High Court that the case of Respondent was considered and he did not fit in the said guidelines
The High Court does not sit in an appeal against the decision
The High Court under Article 226 cannot review that decision
It was however argued for the respondent that the Bank falls within the concept of State  for the purpose ot enforcement of fundamental rights
The Bank therefore cannot extend the service of some and reject the case of others similarly situated
The concept of Article 14 of the Constitution is relied upon
The argument in our opinion proceeds on a wrong premise The Bank has no obligation to extend the services of all officers even if they are found suitable in every respect
The interest of the Bank is the primary consideration for giving extension of  service
With due regard to exigencies of service the Bank in one year may give extension to all suitable retiring officers
In another year it may give extension to some and not to all
In a subsequent year it may not give extension to any One of the officers
The Bank may have a lot of fresh recruits in One year
The Bank may not need the services of all retired persons in another year
The Bank may have lesser PG NO 1033 work load in a succeeding year
The retiring persons cannot in any year demand that extension to all or none
If we concede that right to retiring persons then the very purpose of giving extension in the interest of the Bank would be defeated
We are therefore of opinion that there is no scope for complaining arbitrariness in the matter of giving extension of service to retiring persons
In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court
In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs
PSS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant assessee had claimed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court that tobacco seed oil and tobacco seed cake being forms of tobacco were entitled to exemption under section 8 read with entry 7 of the Fourth Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957 which confers exemption from sales tax in respect of certain goods including tobacco 
The petitioners in the writ petitions have claimed the same relief directly in this Court
The High Court held that tobacco seed was not tobacco and that only leaf stalks and stems of the tobacco plant could he said to be tobacco within the meaning of its definition
Before this Court it is urged on behalf of the Assessees that i the word tobacco  in its ordinary connotation
takes in the tobacco plant and every part of it including the seed ii the definition of tobacco  makes it clear that it takes in every form of tobacco manufactured or unmanufactured and iii tobacco seeds not only when they are in their raw unmanufactured state but also when
on manufacture they manifest themselves in the form of tobacco seed oil or tobacco seed cake will fall within the definition
On the other hand on behalf of the state it is submitted that the definition which covers both what the expression means as well as what it includes is exhaustive and tobacco seed does not come within either the first part or the second part of the definition
Dismissing the appeals and the petitions it was HELD 1 The definition consists of two separate parts which specify what the expression means and also what it includes
The joint use of the words mean and include makes the definition exhaustive
lO94C PG NO 1089 Dilworth vs Commissioner of Stamps 1899 AC 99 referred to
2 Tobacco seed does not come within the first part of the definition for the expression tobacco cured or uncured manufactured or unmanfactured has to be read as a whole and will not take in tobacco seed
It will not come under the second part because it specifically mentions leaves stalks and stems but leaves out seeds
1094A B 3 The definition when it says that tobacco means any form of tobacco lays emphasis that the item under consideration should be tobacco in form
1096A 4 Tobacco seed once it is separated from the plant is an item entirely different from tobacco and does not fall within the expression tobacco or any form of tobacco 
1096C 5 Since tobacco seed does not fall within the definition the oil and cake produced by the crushing of the seeds will not also be covered by the definition or eligible for the consequent exemption
1094B 6 The effect of accepting the assessee s claim for exemption would be to automatically catapult them into the levy of excise and additional excise duties but the fact that tobacco oil and cake have not been considered to be excisable commodities for the past several years is as indication as to how the legislature and administration understood and applied these provisions all along
1096H 1097B CIT vs Taj Mahal Hotel SC Amara Purushotham Mamidi Obaiah vs State of AP 1962 29 STC 654 and 1977 40 STC referred to