JUDGMENT [ENTITY], J.
1. [CASE NUMBER] and 121 connected writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 21-9-2001 made in [CASE NUMBER] and batch. The appellants are the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners questioned the validity of the refusal of [ENTITY], the 1st respondent herein, to accept the applications filed by the petitioners for voluntary retirement under the '[ENTITY] (Employees) Voluntary, Retirement Scheme, 2001' (for short, the Special Scheme), on the ground that the petitioners' age is below the cutoff age as decided by the 1st respondent-Bank.
2. The Special Scheme framed by the 1st respondent herein has had a historical background. The Union of India, Ministry of Defence (Banking Division) had an occasion to review the entire human resources and man-power planning in public -sector banks and suggest remedial measures. For achieving the aforementioned objective, the Union of India constituted a committee headed by Mr. [ENTITY], former Governor of Reserve Bank of India. This committee, known as 'Narasimham Committee-II", was appointed to review the progress of reforms in the banking sector and to chart a programme for banking sector reforms necessary to strengthen India's banking system to make it internationally competitive and to make detailed recommendations in regard to banking policy, institutional, supervisory, legislative and technological dimensions. In the course of deliberations, the committee noted that the economic reforms set in motion in 1990 have unleashed market forces and competition, which affected all sections of the economy including the banking sector. The high establishment cost and low productivity in public sector, which affect their profitability, makes it necessary for the banks to convert entire human resources into assets compatible with business strategies through a variety of measures including constant upgradation of skills, achieving a proper age and skill profile, creating opportunities for lateral and vertical career progress and inducting fresh and skilled personnel, who can man the banks with efficiency and perfection. The committee also found that banking administration is over-manned at varying levels and the banks should adjust their manning level to the right side. It also opined that some of that staff may not be suitable for deployment on grounds of aptitude and mobility. Under those circumstances, the committee recommended to introduce an appropriate voluntary Special Scheme with incentives. On examination of the recommendation of the Narasimham Committee II, it is stated, the Indian Banks Association (for short, [ACT]), addressed letters to all the Chief Executives of the public sector banks. The letter dated 31.-8-2000 addressed to the Chairman and Managing Director of Andhra Bank reads as follows:-
INDIAN BANK'S ASSOCIATION No. PD/CIR/76/G4/933 Strictly Confidential August 31,2000.
Chairman and Managing Director Andhra Bank Head Office Dr. Pattabhi Bhavan 5-9-11, Saifabad Hyderabad 500 004.
Dear Sir, Human Resource Management and manpower planning in Public Sector Banks.
"Attention is invited to letter DO No.11/1/ 99-1R dated 22-5-2000 addressed to the Chief Executives of public sector banks by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Banking Division), wherein banks have been advised to carry out detailed manpower planning in order to adopt measures to have optimum human resources at various levels in keeping with the business strategies and requirements of each bank. t the meeting the Finance Minister had with Chief Executives of Public Sector Banks on 13th June 2000, the human resource and manpower planning in public sector banks where reviewed and a committee was constituted to examine the issues confronting public sector banks in that regard and suggest suitable remedial measures.
In the course of deliberations, the committee noted that the economic reforms set in motion in 1990 have unleashed market forces and competition, which affect all sections of the economy including the banking sector. The high establishment cost and low productivity in public sector banks which affect their profitability, makes it necessary for the banks to convert their human resource into assets compatible with business strategies through a variety of measures including constant upgradation of skills, achieving a proper age and skill profile, creating opportunities for lateral as well as vertical career progression and inducting fresh, skilled personnel with technical and professional skills for new business opportunities.
The data available with us indicates that 43% of employees in public sector banks are in the 46 + age group and only 12% are in the 25-35 age group. This pattern has serious implications for the banks with reference to mobility, training, development of skills and succession plans for higher level positions. This, coupled with excess manpower wherever it exists, would come in the way of induction of new skills and proper career progression.
In order to remedy this situation with the urgency that circumstances demand the committee has placed before the Government two Special Schemes, viz., Sabbatical Leave and a Voluntary Retirement Special Scheme that would assist the banks in their effort to optimize their human resource and achieve a balanced age and skills profile in keeping with their business strategies. Salient features of the two Special Schemes are given in the Annexure. [ACT] vide its letter dated 13th July, 2000 has sought no objection from the Government for circulating the Special Schemes to the banks for consideration and adoption by their Boards. The Government have conveyed to us that they have no objection to the banks' placing the two Special Schemes before their respective Board of Directors for adopting and implementing the above Special Schemes. It has been advised that the banks may adopt these Special Schemes for sabbatical and voluntary retirement based on the essential features of the Special Schemes given in the annexure, after obtaining their Board's approval and implement them in right earnest.
Banks are also requested to take special note of the following:
1. [SECTION] of the [ACT] read with [SECTION].
2. As per the amendments brought in by the [ACT], so long as the bank complies with the rules framed under [SECTION] prior approval from the Chief Commissioner or Director General of Income Tax, as the case may be, is not required for VRS.
3. Income Tax shall be deducted at source in respect of ex-gratia exceeding Rs.5-00 lakhs or such other ceiling as may be prescribed under the [ACT].
4. Only completed years of service will be reckoned or arriving at the minimum eligible service. Subject to this, fraction of service of six months and above will be reckoned as one year for the purpose of calculating the ex-gratia.
5. While exercising discretion to decline applications for VRS or to make exceptions in the case of employees categorized as eligible for VRS, the decision should not be discriminatory among employees who are similarly placed and the reasons therefore should be recorded.
6. The competent authority for accepting VRS for the various categories/class of employees should be clearly laid down by the Board of Directors.
7. Banks should ensure compliance with requirements under labour legislations before giving effect to the Special Scheme."
Yours faithfully, Sd/- xx [ENTITY] Chief Executive and Secretary"
It is stated that similar letters were addressed to the Chief Executives of the other public sector banks including the 1st respondent-Bank. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Narasimham Committee-II and followed by the letter of the [ACT] dated 31-8-2000, the 1st respondent-Bank has introduced the Special Scheme. Under the Special Scheme, all permanent employees of the bank, who have put in 15 years of service or who have completed 40 years of age as on 31-1-2001, except those specifically mentioned as ineligible, are eligible to offer voluntary retirement. All the petitioners applied for voluntary retirement under the Special Scheme. The respondent-Bank rejected their applications by proceedings dated 23-8-2001 stating "the age being below the cut-off age as decided by the bank in the category". Aggrieved by the above proceedings of the respondent-Bank dated 23-8-2001, [CASE NUMBER] and Batch were filed.
3. Before the learned single Judge, on behalf of the writ petitioners, it was contended that the impugned proceeding of the respondent-Bank fixing the cut-off age as 53 years is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of [SECTION] of the [ACT] and it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. On the other hand, on behalf of the 1st respondent-Bank, it was contended that the Special Scheme is for the benefit of the organisation for reducing the surplus staff including the higher aged staff to meet the new challenges and to withstand the stiff competition in the banking sector. The learned Judge, after taking into consideration the rival contentions and appreciation of the materials placed before him, came to the conclusion that the restriction of the Special Scheme to the higher aged officers is consistent with the objects for which the Special Scheme has been framed, and such a course adopted by the 1st respondent is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and it does not offend [SECTION] postulates. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge, by the order under appeal, dismissed all the writ petitions. Hence these, writ appeals by the aggrieved writ petitioners.
4. Sri [ENTITY], learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants while assailing the order of the 1st respondent as affirmed by the learned single Judge, would contend that it is not permissible for the respondent-Bank to deviate from the decision taken by [ACT], of which the 1st respondent-Bank is also a member and which decision was taken after the respondent-Bank made the exercise relating to its manpower requirement. The learned senior Counsel would also contend that the respondent-Bank, by fixing 53 years as cutoff age, defeated the very purpose and objective for which the Special Scheme was evolved. The learned senior Counsel would further contend that even according to the Special Scheme framed by the respondent-bank, category-wise list has to be prepared and cut-off age in each category has to be arrived at, but such an exercise was not done by the 1st respondent-Bank. The learned senior Counsel would lastly contend that the departure made by the 1st respondent-bank in fixing 53 years as cutoff age is discriminatory in nature inter-se between the employees of the public sector banks.
5. Sri [ENTITY], learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in [CASE NUMBER] would contend that the action of the 1st respondent-Bank in rejecting the applications of the petitioners taking into account only the age as the relevant criterion and not the length of service, is totally contrary to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme proposed by [ACT] and therefore, it is irrational and arbitrary.
6. Sri [ENTITY], learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Bank, on the other hand, sought to sustain the impugned order and the order of the learned single Judge impugned in these writ appeals and would maintain that the Special Scheme is framed for the benefit of the organization for weeding out the surplus staff including the higher aged staff to meet the new challenges brought about by modern technology and science and computerization and to withstand the stiff competition in the banking sector. The learned Standing Counsel would contend that the contention of the appellants that the Special Scheme framed by the respondent-Bank is not in conformity with the recommendations of Narasimham Committee-II and the scheme formulated by the [ACT], is not well founded. The learned Standing Counsel would point out that the [ACT] has not framed any scheme, it has simply directed the concerned banks to frame its own scheme providing for voluntary retirement based on the needs and requirements of each bank and that too, after obtaining concerned Board's approval. The learned Standing Counsel would also contend that the applications submitted by the employees of the bank were accepted as per the requirements of the bank in descending order of age of the applications of the employees coming under higher age group above cut-off age were accepted. The learned Standing Counsel would also draw the attention of the Court to the provision in [SECTION] of the Special Scheme that 'cut-off age in each category, will depend upon the acceptable number of employees who can be permitted to retire' and submit that for the purpose of allowing 658 officers and 730 award staff who are found surplus to retire, cut-off age worked out to 53 years for officers and 50 years for award staff as on 31-1-2001. According to the learned Standing Counsel, if there are more number of applications, the cut-off age will be on the higher side and lesser the applications, the cut-off age would be on the lower side. The learned Standing Counsel would maintain that the 1st respondent-Bank can neither predict nor fix any cut-off age at its discretion and therefore, there was no arbitrariness in fixing the cut-off age.
7. In the field of public services, once a person joins any public service, he is required to serve such service till he attains the age of superannuation in normal course and he cannot claim that he is entitled to retire from service at any time according to his wish and will before he attains the age of superannuation. However, the rules governing such public service may provide for voluntary retirement of an employee before he attains the age of supernnuation. If such rules exist, then, voluntary retirement becomes a condition of service. For example, [SECTION] of the Fundamental Rules provides that any Government servant may, by giving notice of not less than 3 months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained a particular age (ranging from 52 to 55 years depending upon the group to which he belongs) and subject to various other stipulations contained in the proviso to that rule. The provision for voluntary retirement, being a condition of service, gives an option in absolute terms to a public servant to voluntarily retire after giving the requisite notice and after he has reached the qualifying age or rendered qualifying service, as the case may be. In such a case, when the employee makes a request for voluntary retirement, there is no question of acceptance of the request by the employer. In the absence of rules providing for voluntary retirement, however, no employee could insist, as a matter of course or as a matter of right, that the employer should permit him to retire voluntarily before attaining the age of superannuation keeping the service benefits and conditions in tact. The rules providing for voluntary retirement may be of two kinds, namely, (i) a rule providing an option in absolute terms to a public servant to voluntarily retire on attaining a particular age or after putting in a specified number of years of service and after giving notice; or (ii) a rule merely prescribing eligibilities to seek voluntary retirement and not providing for voluntary retirement as such. In the former case, an employee, on fulfilling the prescribed conditions, can claim voluntary retirement as a matter of right, whereas in the latter case he cannot, because, despite the fact that he fulfils the prescribed eligibilities to apply for voluntary retirement, the discretion to accept such offer of retirement is vested in the employer, and the employer may or may not accept such an offer of the employee having regard to the needs and exigencies of service and other relevant considerations. In addition to the aforementioned two kinds of rules that may exist in a public service organization providing for voluntary retirement, a particular service organization may also evolve and introduce a Special scheme in its discretion de hors the rules providing for voluntary retirement. If an employee seeks voluntary retirement under such special scheme, he can seek voluntary retirement strictly in terms of such Special Scheme and not de hors the Special Scheme, because, as already pointed out supra, no employee, after joining a public service, can claim voluntary retirement as a matter of right or course unless the rules governing terms and conditions of his service provide for such retirement. In the premise of these well-settled established principles governing voluntary retirement, let us consider the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties.
8. The 1st respondent-Bank is a Corporation constituted under [ENTITY] (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959, having its head office at Gunfoundry, Hyderabad. It has wide network of 878 branches, 7 Zonal Offices and 25 Regional Offices spreading throughout India. The service conditions of the officers and award staff and governed by the [ENTITY] [ACT] and/or the concerned award/bi-partite settlements, respectively. These service conditions govern promotions, retirement resignation, etc., and are applicable to all categories of employees.
9. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Narasimham Committee-II and followed by the letter of the [ACT] dated 31-8-2000, the 1st respondent-Bank conducted a study and found that out of 4100 supervisory staff, except 664, rest of the staff numbering 3437 crossed the age 40 years and in the case of clerical staff out of 7286, only 4283 are below the age of 40 years rest of the staff numbering 3043 have crossed the age of 40 years. According to the first respondent-Bank, taking into consideration its requirements and various other factors including computerization, controlling, mechanization, it was felt that 658 officers and 730 clerical staff are surplus for which the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent-Bank, in its meeting held on 22-1-2001, agreed with the same. In other words, 16.04% of the total strength of officers and 10.01% of clerical staff are found surplus. In the premise of the above finding and to meet its requirements and to face the future challenges and compete effectively in the changing economic scenario, the 1st respondent-Bank framed and introduced the Special Scheme dated 25-1-2001 as one-time measure. It cannot be gainsaid that this Special Scheme is for the benefit of Organization for reducing surplus staff including higher aged staff to meet the new challenges and to withstand the stiff competition in the banking sector. This Special Scheme was also approved by the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent-Bank at its meeting held on 22-1-2001, as suggested by [ACT] in its letter dated 31-8-2000.
10. The object of the one-time Special Scheme, as set out in the Special Scheme itself, is as follows:
"To enable the bank to optimize human resources and achieve a balanced age and skills profile enabling proper succession planning at all levels and in tune with the organizational structure and business strategies.
Some of the provisions of the Special Scheme which are relevant to the decision-making be noticed first. Articles, 4, 5.00 to 5.06, 6.00 to 6.03, 10.01, 10.02, 10.03, 11.01, 11.02, 11.09 11.11, 11.12 and 11.14 of the Special Scheme read as follows:
"4.00 ELIGIBILITY:
The scheme shall be open to all permanent employees of the bank except those specifically mentioned as "INELIGIBLE1 who have put in 15 years of service or who have completed 40 years of age as on the 31st January, 2001.
Age shall be reckoned on the basis of the date of birth as entered in service record.
5.00 INELIGIBLE:
5.01 Staff members who have executed bonds and have not completed it; staff members serving abroad under special arrangement/ bonds. The Board of Directors may, however, waive this, subject to fulfilment of the bond/other requirements.
5.02 Employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated/pending or who are under suspension. The will also include employees against whom action has been initiated by Government agencies/other law enforcing agencies.
5.03 Employees appointed on contract basis;
5.04 Watch and ward staff;
5.05 Specialist Officers;
5.06 Skilled and qualified staff;
6.00 QUALIFYING SERVICE:
6.01 Only completed years of service will be reckoned for arriving at the minimum eligible service;
6.02 Any absence from duty treated as period not eligible for service/terminal benefits specifically by the Disciplinary Authority in its final order shall not be counted as service.
6.03 Period of suspension not treated as period spent on duty by the Disciplinary/Appellate/Reviewing Authority in its final order shall not be counted as service.
10.01 The bank intends to control the outflow according to its requirements. Towards this end, the bank retains the discretion to limit the number of employees allowed to retire in each category of staff viz., officers/ clerical/subordinate, to be covered under the scheme. As such, the bank will have the sole discretion as to the acceptance or rejection of the request for retirement under the Scheme depending upon the requirements of the bank. For the purpose of exercising discretion in this regard, category-wise list of eligible candidates would be prepared in descending order of their age and applications of employees coming in higher age group above cut-off age would be accepted, the cut-off age in each category will of course depend upon the acceptable number of employees who can be permitted to retire."
"10.02 No request by an employee for voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have been accepted and come into effect unless the decision of the Competent Authority has been communicated in writing."
"10.03 Submission of the applications under the scheme and receiving the same by the bank does not confer any right to the employee against the bank in any manner."
11.0 General Conditions:
11.01 Staff members desirous of availing benefits under the scheme will have to submit a written application to the Competent Authority, through proper channel, in the specified format, within the period for which the scheme is kept open.
11.02 An employee who has submitted an application for retirement under the scheme will be permitted to withdraw the application on or before the 21st February, 2001. For his purpose, the employee shall have to make a written request which must reach the authority to whom the application for retirement under the scheme has been submitted, on or before, the 21st February, 2001.
11.09 As the scheme is voluntary in nature, it shall not be negotiable and shall not be deemed or construed as a subject-matter of right or contract of service. It wilt not be a subject-matter of the [ACT] and shall not be cited as precedent, custom, convention, usage or practice any time in future.
"11.11 This scheme is independent of and without prejudice to the rights of the bank to dispense with the services of an employee under the contract of the employment, service rules, Awards or under the applicable standing orders/Law Rules/Terms and conditions of service as may be applicable to the employee concerned"
11.12 This scheme shall not be construed as a revision of any of the provision retirement schemes of the bank and as such no claim from any employee who has retired/ will be retiring under the existing scheme shall be entertained."
11.14 Bank reserves the right to modify, amend or cancel any or all of the aforesaid clauses and to give effect thereto from any dates it may deem fit.
11. The appellants herein, who are the petitioners in the writ petitions, and other employees applied under the Special Scheme for voluntary retirement. In their applications, they have made the following declarations, as required under the Special Scheme. They are:
(i) I am aware that the acceptance or rejection of my request for voluntary retirement under the scheme is at the absolute discretion of the Bank;
(ii) I am aware that no voluntary retirement under the scheme shall be deemed to have come into effect unless the decision of the Competent Authority as to the acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement has been communicated in writing and I have been relieved from my duties to the satisfaction of the bank;
(iii) I am aware that in case of dispute as to the interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of the scheme, the decision of the banks shall be final and binding on me;
(iv) I agree that the bank has right to modify, amend or cancel any or all of the clauses of the scheme and to give effect thereto from any date bank may deem fit."
12. The Special Scheme is framed by the 1st respondent-Bank in exercise of its executive power. In other words, the special scheme is framed by the 1st respondent-Bank by issuing administrative instructions. Although an administrative instruction can be successfully assailed if it can be established that it is inconsistent with the constitutional provisions, e.g., [SECTION] or [SECTION] or [SECTION] or [SECTION], reviewing the validity of the Special Scheme in this batch of cases would not arise, because, the validity of the scheme as such is not assailed in the writ petitions. What is assailed by the appellants is the norm evolved and adopted by the 1st respondent-Bank in implementing the Special Scheme fixing the cut-off age at 53 years in the case of officers and 50 years in the case of award staff as on 31-1-2001.
13. Having regard to the contentions raised before us, the following questions arise for decision:
(i) Whether the [ACT] has framed any uniform scheme providing for voluntary retirement to be adopted by all its member-public sector banks, and if so, whether the member-public sector banks are, in law, obliged to adopt and implement such scheme?
(ii) Whether the cut-off age fixed by the 1st respondent-Bank at 53 years for officers and 50 years for award staff as on31-l-2001 in implementing the Special Scheme is authorized and in accordance with the Special Scheme?
(iii) Whether the above norm evolved and applied by the 1st respondent-Bank under the Special Scheme is invalid being arbitrary and irrational?
14. The letter of the [ACT] dated 31-8-2000 extracted above makes it abundantly clear that the [ACT] has not framed any uniform scheme providing for voluntary retirement to be adopted by all member-public sector banks. The above letter itself reflects this position. In the first paragraph of the letter, the member-public sector banks have been advised to carry out detailed man-power planning in order to adopt measures to have optimum human resource at various levels in keeping with the business strategies and requirements of each bank. The underlined portion of the sentence clearly indicates that the [ACT] wanted the member-public sector banks to frame individual schemes to meet the requirements of each bank. The intendment of [ACT] and the Government of India to leave the framing of the appropriate scheme to the concerned banks is also clear from the fact that in the above letter the [ACT], after referring to the no objection accorded by the Government of India to place the two schemes before the respective Board of Directors, has requested the concerned bank-management to frame a voluntary retirement scheme based on the essential features of the scheme and after obtaining its Board's approval. Further, the criteria that are directed to be taken note of while framing the scheme also go to show that the Government of India and the [ACT] wanted the concerned banks to frame and implement their individual schemes to meet their requirements, of course, in the light of the policy decision taken by the Government of India to streamline the manpower planning in the banking sector to achieve optimum human resource at various levels. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the 1st respondent-Bank has deviated from the decision taken by the Government of India and the [ACT]. The subsidiary question is, even assuming that the salient features of the voluntary retirement scheme and scheme for sabbatical leave annexed to the letter of the [ACT] dated 31-8-2000 is considered to be a scheme, whether such a scheme would bind the 1st respondent-bank and whether it, in law, is obliged to adopt and implement the same. Our straight answer to this question is emphatic 'no'. We say this because at the time of arguments, when we pointedly asked the learned senior Counsel for the appellants, Sri [ENTITY], to trace the obligation of the 1st respondent-Bank to adopt and implement each and every norm/stipulation incorporated in the Annexure to the letter of the [ACT] dated 31-8-2000, in all fairness, the learned senior Counsel for the appellants, would submit that the scheme annexed to the letter dated 31-8-2000 is not binding on the 1st respondent-Bank. However, the learned senior Counsel would maintain that since the scheme annexed to the letter was framed in consultation with all member-public sector banks and after causing manpower planning and requirements of each of those banks, it is totally arbitrary and irrational on the part of the 1st respondent-Bank to deviate from the recommendations made by the [ACT]. In order to appreciate this contention of the learned senior Counsel for the appellants, the Court cannot lose sight of the contents of the letter of the [ACT] dated 31-8-2000, to which reference is already made supra. As already pointed out, although the [ACT] enclosed some kind of a draft scheme, it made very clear in its letter that the individual scheme had to be framed and implemented by the concerned bank having regard to the requirements of each bank, and that too, after obtaining approval of the Board of Directors of each bank. Therefore, it goes without saying that the [ACT] did not want the member-public sector banks to adopt in toto the draft scheme annexed to the letter-dated 31-8-2000. The resultant position is that even assuming that the draft scheme consisting of salient features of voluntary retirement scheme should be treated as a scheme framed by the [ACT] in consultation with the member-public sector banks, the 1st respondent-bank is in law, not obliged to adopt and implement the same. Secondly, it cannot be said that the Special Scheme framed by the 1st respondent-bank impugned in the writ petitions suffers from any vice of arbitrariness or irrationality. In fact, such a question does not arise in this batch of cases because, there is no challenge to the Special Scheme as such.
15. This takes us to the other questions that arises for decision. The relevant articles of the Special Scheme and the declarations made by the applicants hi their applications extracted above clearly go to show that under the Special Scheme, the 1st respondent is authorized to determine the cut-off age for officers as well as award staff. [SECTION] specifically directs the Managements of the Banks to prepare category-wise list of eligible applicants in descending order of their age and it further directs that applications of the employees coming in higher age group above the cut-off age should be accepted. [SECTION] also directs that the cut-off age in each category will depend upon the number of employees who can be permitted to retire. This authority under the Special Scheme coupled with the directions of the [ACT] to all member-Banks to frame a scheme keeping in view the business strategies and bank's requirements, in our considered opinion, supports fully the norm evolved and adopted by the 1st respondent-Bank in determining the cutoff age at 53 years and 50 years for officers and award staff respectively. In para 21 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, it is stated
"The voluntary retirement scheme was introduced only after conducting manpower study and obtaining the approval of the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors delegated the power to various authorities, as stated in the circular, to accept or to reject the applications taking into account the requirements of the bank in each category. Bank has received 2564 applications from the officers/award staff and 266 employees have withdrawn their applications and finally 2298 applications (1127 applications of officers and 1171 applications of award staff) were remained for processing as per the scheme. Applications of Supervising Staff, it was found that 681 of the applications are from the age group of 53 years and above. Regarding clerical staff, out of the applications received, it was found that 689 of the applications are from the age group of 50 and above. Therefore, cut-off worked out to at 53 years for officers and 50 years of clerical staff for accepting the applications. Out of the above applications, 1545 of the applications were accepted taking into consideration of the requirements of the bank and after excluding ineligible applications and remaining 753 applications were rejected (475 officers, 214 clerical staff.) From sub-staff category 272 applications were received and 208 applications were accepted. It is once again submitted that the cut-off age has been worked out as per the list of applications prepared in the descending order of the age. It is submitted that mentioning of cut-off age is only incidental and the management has no role in arriving at the same."
The exercise done by the management of the 1st respondent-Bank in determining the cut-off age for the purpose of the Special Scheme completely negatives the attack of the writ petitioners that the determination of the cut-off age at 53 years and 50 years for officers and ward staff respectively is whimsical, fanciful, arbitrary and irrational. On other hand, the exercise done by the 1st respondent-Bank before determining the cut-off age, clearly shows that the determination of the cut-off age at 53 years and 50 years for officers and award staff respectively, is based on appropriate assessment of the manpower need and also the business strategy of the bank to streamline the manpower planning by adopting appropriate measures in order to achieve optimum human resources at various levels in the banking sector.
16. It is true that since the guarantee of equal protection embraces the entire realm of 'State action*, it would extend not only when an individual is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of his rights or in the matter of imposing liabilities upon him, but also in the matter of granting privileges or benefits or advantages, as the case may be. In all these cases, the principle is the same, namely, that there should be no discrimination between one person and another, if, as regard the subject-matter of the law, their position is the same; or in other words, its action must not be arbitrary, but must be based on some valid principle which itself must not be irrational and discriminatory. This position is well-settled by the binding pronouncements of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], , [PRECEDENT], , [PRECEDENT], , [PRECEDENT], , [PRECEDENT], . But in deciding the question whether the norm adopted by the 1st respondent-Bank is irrational and discriminatory, the Court is only concerned to see whether that norm is evolved in a manner that is fair, just and equitable, after taking objectively all the relevant options into consideration and in a manner that is reasonable, relevant and germane to effectuate the purpose for public good and in general public interest, and it has not taken any irrelevant or irrational factors into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. What [SECTION] prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification. If the management of the 1st respondent-bank had taken reasonable care to classify its employees, both in the officer cadre and award staff, to effectuate the special scheme by evolving a norm, it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that by virtue of the norm, the others like the writ petitioners arc denied a right to seek voluntary retirement under the Special Scheme. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification under [SECTION] of the [ACT], two conditions must co-exist viz., (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that, that differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In order to see whether the above two tests existed or not, the following facts, over which there is no dispute, be noted. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 4, it is stated
"Bank has clearly spelt in the subject scheme that the applications will be accepted as per its requirements and in descending order of the age and, the applications of the employees coming under higher age group above cut-off age would be accepted. It is made clear in [SECTION] of the scheme that the "cut-off age in each category will ofcourse depend upon the acceptable number of employees who can be permitted to retire." It is submitted that for the purpose of allowing 658 officers and 730 award staff who are found surplus, the cut-off age worked out to 53 years for officers and 50 years for award staff as on 31-1-2001. We may be permitted to submit that it is made clear in the scheme that "for the purpose of exercising discretion in this regard, category-wise list of eligible applicants would be prepared in descending order of their age." It is also made clear that the applications of employees coming in higher age group would be accepted. It is respectfully submitted that if the bank accepts the applications of higher age group, it will not be committing any deviation from the scheme. In other words, it is submitted that the reference to the cutoff age is unnecessary. Except age, no other parameters can be applied or fixed as it would defeat the very objective (s) of the scheme including reducing higher aged staff. Any other criteria, as suggested by the petitioners, cannot be taken as parameters. Further fixing cut-off age, does not amount to modification of scheme."
17. In the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that if all the employees who have attained the age of 40 years and who have put in 15 years of qualifying service are permitted to retire under the special scheme, 663 officers and 3043 award staff, totalling to 3706 would be left over to the bank for managing the head office, 7 zonal offices, 25 regional offices and 878 branches and that staff strength would not be sufficient. The assessment made by the management of the 1st respondent-bank, in the absence of any mala fide attributed to the personnel of the bank, cannot lightly be interfered with by the Court while reviewing their action. 'Keeping in view the findings which emanate from the manpower exercise done by the management of the bank and manpower needs of the bank to manage its head office, 7 zonal offices, 25 regional offices and 878 branches, it cannot be said the norm evolved and adopted by the 1st respondent-Bank, fixing the cut-off age at 53 years for officers and 50 years for award staff, is irrational or arbitrary. Therefore, we hold that the cut-off age fixed by the 1st respondent-bank at 53 years for officers and 50 years for award staff for implementing the Special Scheme is very much authorized under [SECTION] of the special scheme and therefore, it is in accordance with the Special Scheme. We further hold that the above norm evolved and adopted by the 1st respondent-Bank, in no way offends any of the postulates of [SECTION] of the [ACT].
18. However, Sri [ENTITY], learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in [CASE NUMBER], placing reliance on the judgment of the [ACT] Bench in [PRECEDENT], would contend that the 1st respondent-Bank has made mini-classification in order to exclude the appellants/petitioners from the purview of the special scheme, and such a mini-classification is impermissible in law and prohibited by [SECTION] of the [ACT]. We do not think that this contention of the learned senior Counsel deserves any serious consideration at our hands. As already pointed out supra, what [SECTION] prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification. Since we have found that the classification made by the 1st respondent-Bank by evolving the impugned norm is founded on an intelligible differential and that differential has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved under the scheme, the validity of the norm has to be upheld. Further, it cannot be said that the classification made by the 1st respondent-Bank by evolving the impugned norm in based on any hypertechnical and unsound basis or considerations, nor can it be held that the differences between the classes or categories are inconsequential so as to attract mini-classification rule. [SECTION] does not insist that the classification should be scientifically perfect or logically complete. The Court would not interfere unless the classification results in pronounced inequality.
19. The 1st respondent-Bank on proper appraisal of its manpower needs and business strategies that should be adopted to achieve optimum human resources at various levels has evolved a norm for the purpose of implementing the Special Scheme. In our considered opinion, this norm evolved by the 1st respondent-bank partakes the characteristic of a policy. In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court has opined that no economic measure has yet been devised which is free from discriminatory impact and that in such a complex area in which no perfect alternatives exist, the Court does well not to impose too rigorous a standard of criticism, under the equal protection clause. Further, by the judgments in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], , [PRECEDENT], and [PRECEDENT], it is well settled that policy choices of even a State and its instrumentalities are not susceptible to judicial review, at any rate, as an appellate authority except in rare cases and where the Court finds apparent perversity, gross irrationality and other unconstitutional factors vitiating the policy. We do not find any of these vitiating factors in the impugned norm. The impugned norm evolved to implement the Special Scheme is the product of expert evaluation and choice of an appropriate policy by the 1st respondent-bank to meet the current manpower requirements of the 1st respondent-Bank. It is stated that the large percentage of higher age employees in this present organizational structure has been perceived by the management of the 1st respondent-Bank as one of the factors which diminutes its operative efficiency in the national environment, where the public sector banks are obliged to compete with private banks with their leaner staff structure and higher educational and professional skills. This substantive structural problem confronting the bank has' been addressed by the bank itself in framing the special scheme. One of the principal objects of the Special Scheme is to weed out the employees belonging to higher age, but at the same time a specified percentage of the respondent's manpower resources has been earmarked to cater the present manpower need of the bank. Thus, it can be seen that the 1st respondent-Bank, by framing the Special Scheme, has attempted to harmonise the twin objectives of reduction of surplus staff and achieve optimum human resource at various levels.
20. We do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants. Writ appeals are devoid of any merit and they are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.