http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K. C. CHOPRA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/07/1997

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The respondent  was the Assistant Director in the Small Industries Development  Organisation. Government of India at the material time. He went on deputation on 10.3.1970 to the appellant-Bank. On  the expiry  of the period of deputation, he was  absorbed in  the permanent service of the appellant- Bank with  effect from  10.3.1972. The  letter of  16.3.1972 issued by  the appellant-Bank  sets out  that  he  has  been absorbed in  the  permanent  service  of  the  Bank  in  the category of  Officer Grade  ’B’ with  effect from 10.3.1972. Clause 2  of this  letter states  that the Bank reserves the right to revise the rules relating to the officers and their conditions of  service from  time to time. The Government of India, Ministry of Industry and Civil Supplies by its letter dated 12.5.1975  conveyed the  sanction of  the President to the  permanent   absorption  of  the  respondent  in  public interest in  the service  of the  appellant-Bank with effect from 10.3.1972. On his permanent absorption, the eligibility of the  respondent to  pension/gratuity from  the Government was also  spelt out in the letter of sanction. The letter of sanction inter  alia, also  stated that,  from the  date  of permanent absorption, the respondent will be entitled to all the benefits  admissible to  corresponding employees  of the Bank and he will continue to be governed by the Rules of the appellant-Bank in all respects.      In  1979,   the  Government  of  India  issued  certain guidelines relating  to the  service conditions of employees of National  Banks  pursuant  to  which  the  appellant-Bank framed Punjab  National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Under these Regulations, it was provided as follows:           "1. An officer employee of the      Bank  recruited/promoted  prior  to      19th July,  1969  shall  retire  on      completion of 60 years of age.           2. An  officer employee of the      Bank recruited  prior to 19th July,      1969 but  promoted as an officer on      or  after  19th  July,  1966  shall      retire on completion of 60 years of      age.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

         3. An  officer employee of the      Bank recruited as an award staff or      an officer  employee  on  or  after      19th July,  1969  shall  retire  on      completion of 58 years of age."      The reference to the date 19.7.196 in these Regulations is to  the date  of nationalisation  of the  appellant-Bank. Prior to  nationalisation of  the  appellant-Bank,  its  own service regulations  prescribed for  its  officer  employees retirement at  the age  of 50. After nationalisation, as per Government guidelines,  the new  regulations prescribed  the retirement age  of 58 years for officer employees. Hence the Regulations  provide   that  officer   employees  who   were recruited  prior   to  nationalisation   shall   retire   on completion of 60 years of age while the officer employees of the Bank  who  were employed after 19.7.1969 shall retire on completion of  58 years  of age.  Since the  respondent  was absorbed in  the service of the appellant-Bank on 10.3.1972, he was  retired at  the age  of 58  years with  effect  from 30.4.1990 since he completed 58 years on 7.4.1990.      It seems  that in  the case  of one H. C. Nakra who was originally  in   the  employment   of  the   State   Trading Corporation but  had later  joined the  appellant-Bank, on a representation made  to      the Ministry of Finance, it was decided that  since both  the State  Trading Corporation  as well as  the appellant-Bank  had treated Nakra’s appointment in the  Bank as  a case  of lateral  transfer rather than as fresh  recruitment   he  should  be  given  the  benefit  of retirement at  the age  of 60.  The sanction  of the Finance Ministry refers  to various  considerations. At  the time of transfer the  then existing  age of  retirement age  was  60 years. This  might have  been one  of the  important factors which  had  attracted  the  officer  to  a  posting  in  the appellant-Bank. As a special case, it was decided that Nakra would retire  at the age of 60 years. The letter of sanction dated 8.4.1980  from the  Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs  is on record. It is very clearly stated in the letter of sanction that this decision is applicable only in the  case of  Shri Nakra on the special facts of his case and is not intended to be of general application.      It is  strenuously contended by learned counsel for the respondent that  since the  respondent is similarly situated as Nakra,  he should  be given  the benefit of retirement at the age  of 60  years. He  has pointed  out that some of the factors which  are set  out in the Finance Ministry’s letter of sanction relating to Shri Nakra are common to his case as well as  to the  case of  Nakra. But  there is one important difference. In the case of Shri Nakra both the State Trading Corporation  (his   previous  employer)   as  well   as  the appellant-Bank had  agreed to treat Nakra’s appointment as a case of lateral transfer while in the case of the respondent there is no such agreement. On the contrary, the case of the respondent is clearly a case of absorption in the appellant- Bank with effect from 10.3.1972.      Moreover the  letter of  sanction in  the case of Nakra clearly sets out that the case of Nakra was to be treated as a special  case and  not as a matter of general application. We are  not required  to consider  the merits or demerits of this benefit  which was  conferred on Nakra. What we have to examine  is  whether  looking  to  the  Regulations  of  the appellant-Bank, the  respondent can claim that despite these regulations, and  in violation  of what  they prescribe,  he should be  treated in  the same  manner as Nakra. Article 14 cannot be  applied to  a  situation  where  its  benefit  as claimed, would be contrary to law. The respondent was not an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

employee of the appellant-Bank prior to 19.7.1969. He cannot claim the  benefit of retirement at the age of 60 years. The letter of  appointment which  was issued  by the Bank to the respondent quite  clearly shows  that he  was absorbed as an employee of  the Bank  with effect  from 10.3.1982.  All the Rules  and   Regulations  of   the   appellant-Bank   became applicable to  the respondent  from  10.3.1972.  He  cannot, therefore, be  considered as an employee officer of the Bank recruited prior to 19.7.1969.      It  is  also  contended  by  learned  counsel  for  the respondent that  the case  of the  respondent is outside the service regulations  because he  cannot be  considered as an officer employees  of the  Bank recruited  after  19.7.1969. This contention  has to  be stated to be rejected. His links with his previous employer were severed on absorption and he became an employee of the bank only from 10.3.1972.      The High Court, in our view was not right in giving the benefit of  the retirement age of 60 years to the respondent on the  basis of Nakra’s case. Another Division Bench of the same High  Court. In  the case  of K.  K. Tandon  vs. Punjab National Bank  & Ors.  (C. W.  No 2293/90)  by its  judgment dated August 28, 1990 had refused to extend similar benefits to the  petitioner before  it on the ground inter alia, that Nakra’s case  was treated  as a  special case.  The  Special Leave Petition from this judgment was also dismissed by this Court.      The very  sanction letter in the case of Nakra on which strong reliance  is placed  by  the  respondent,  in  terms, states that  the decision  in Nakra’s case is available only to him  and is  not intended  to be  of general application. Others, therefore,  cannot claim  the same  benefit  on  the basis of  that decision  specially when  giving that benefit would be  contrary to  and  in  the  teeth  of  the  service regulations applicable to the employee.      The  appeal   is,  therefore,   allowed.  The  impugned Judgment of  the High  Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.