Case: Chairman, Canara Bank, Bangalore Vs. Shri M.S.Jasra

Respondent No. 1, M.S. Jasra, joined the service of the Reserve Bank of India in 1957, was promoted as a Staff Officer in 1970 and then as a Banking Officer in 1977. M.S. Jasra applied in response to an advertisement issued by the Lakshmi Commercial Bank and was selected in 1983 for the post of Assistant General Manager which he joined in March, 1983.2. The Central Government, after considering the application made by the Reserve Bank under sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 made an order of moratorium under sub-section (2) thereof in respect of Lakshmi Commercial Bank on April 27, 1985. Thereafter, the Reserve Bank prepared a scheme for amalgamation of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank with the Canara Bank on August 23, 1985 under sub-section (4) or Section 45 which was approved by the Central Government on August 24, 1985. As a consequence thereof, the services of the employees of Lakshmi Commercial Bank were continued on amalgamation in the Canara Bank and respondent No. 1, M.S. Jasra was fitted in the post of Divisional Manager in the Canara Bank.3. M.S. Jasra, respondent No. 1 was aggrieved by his continuance in the Canara Bank as Divisional Manager since he claimed to be fitted against a higher post by virtue of the office of Assistant General Manager held by him in the Lakshmi Commercial Bank; and he also asserted that he was entitled to continue in the service of Canara Bank till he attained the age of 60 years which was the age of superannuation for him in the Lakshmi Commercial Bank instead of 58 years, the age of superannuation in the Canara Bank. These representations made by M.S. Jasra were rejected by the Canara Bank as well as by the Reserve Bank. Respondent No. 1, M.S. Jasra then filed Writ Petition No. 2199 of 1991 in the Delhi High Court for grant of the relief that he was entitled to continue in service in the Canara Bank till he attained the age of 60 years instead of 58 years. By the impugned Judgment dated 20th September, 1991 the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition quashing the Reserve Banks letter dated 18th May, 1991 wherein it was stated that the age of superannuation of respondent No. 1, M.S. Jasra was 58 years and not 60 years as claimed by him, and declared that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to continue in service of the Canara Bank till he attains the age of 60 years. Hence, this petition for grant of special leave to appeal against the High Courts judgment has been filed.

Court's reasoning:
Clauses 10 and 12 of the scheme as quoted above merely incorporate the matter specified in clause (i) and the proviso thereunder with which we are concerned and so read and understood, there is no ambiguity or conflict in those clauses of the scheme either inter se or with clause (i) and the proviso thereunder in sub-section (5) of Section 45.In our opinion, that decision which led to the addition of the explanation in Section 45 by Act No. 1 of 1984 to the effect that in this Section the `terms and conditions of service shall not be construed as extending to the rank and status of such employees, is of no assistance in the present case. With respect, if that decision is read to construe clause (i) with its proviso in sub-section (5) of Section 45 as suggested on behalf of respondent No. 1, then we are unable to subscribe to that view since the proper construction of these provisions, according to us, is as indicated above.It follows, that respondent No. 1 could not, therefore, claim to be governed by the age of superannuation of 60 years in the Lakshmi Commercial Bank. When his services were continued on amalgamation of the Lakshmi Commercial Bank with the Canara Bank he became an employee of the Canara Bank and was, therefore, entitled only to the right given by proviso (ii) to clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 45 which entitled him to the same terms and conditions of service as employees of the corresponding rank of status of the Canara Bank. Age of superannuation of the employees in Canara Bank being 58 years only, respondent No. 1 could not claim to retire at 60 years. The High Court misconstrued clause (i) and proviso (ii) thereunder of sub-section (5) of Section 45 of the Act and clauses 10 and 12 of the amalgamation scheme to take the contrary view.