MUNDRIKA DUBEY AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

                                       [2008} 3 S.C.R. 163

  .,, t'.                      MUNDRIKA DUBEY AND ORS.                              A
                                                v.
                                STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
                               (Civil Appeal No. 1468 of 2008)
                                     FEBRUARY 21, 2008
                                                                                    B
                [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)
   ....

          ...        Service Law:
                      Retirement - Compulsory retirement - Of Appellants-
                Class IV employees - By Respondent-Bank - Justification of \..,     "'
                - Held: Justified under r.235 which provided for compulsory
                retirement in the Bank's interest - Respondent-Bank was not
                only heavily over-staffed but also running into huge losses -
                Substantial pruning of employees was required for its survival
                - In any event, it is not for this Court to opine as to who should D
                be retained in service and who should be retired and at what
                stage and situation as this is a matter to be left to the exclusive
                discretion of the employer - Bihar Rajya Shakari Bhumi Vikas
                Bank Samiti (Rules) - rr. 232 and 235.
                      Appellants-Class IV employees were comp1;1lsorily             E
                retired by Respondent-Bank vide order purportedly
                passed under Rules 232 and 235 of the Bihar Rajya
                Shakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (Rules). They filed writ
                petitions before the High Court which were dismissed .
       ••                                                                   F
....                  In appeal to this Court the contention of the
                Appellants is that Rule 235 on which the respondents had
                placed reliance for dispensing with the services of the
                appellants by way of compulsory retirement was not in
                fact a source of power as it only dealt with the payment of G
                gratuity and provident fund to a certain category of
                employees and that it was only under Rule 232 that an
                employee could be compulsorily retired and that too on
                the ground of inefficiency and as it was not the case of
                                              163                                   H
    164      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008] 3 S.C.R.

                                                                     1 ..,
A the respondent-Bank that the appellants were inefficient,
  the impugned action of the Bank was unjustified. The
  Appellants further contended that they had put in more
  than 30 years of service with the Bank and if any re-
  structuring was to be made so as to make Bank's working
B more efficient, it would have been appropriate to dispense
  with the staff atthe top i.e. senior officers of the Bank rather
  than the low paid Class IV employees such as the
  appellants.
                                                                     ..   •


          Per contra, Respondents contended that Rule 235
c was itself the source of power and operated in a field
    different from Rule 232 and that it was not for this Court
    to interfere so as to determine as to which employee
    should be retrenched first, and who later, as this was a
    matter for the internal administration of the Bank.
D
          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1. Concededly the action against the
  appellants has not been taken under Rule 232 which deals
  with the compulsory retirement of an employee who has
E put in 21 years of duty and 25 years of total service if it is
  considered that the efficiency or the conduct of the
  employee does not justify his retention in service. Rule
  235 however talks about compulsory retirement in the
  Bank's interest of those who have reached the age of 50
F years  and have completed 30 years of service and also             )l.

  talks about the benefit of contributory provident fund and
  gratuity, as admissible to such employees. Undoubtedly,
  action under Rule 232 can only be taken if the employee
  concerned is inefficient or is guilty of misconduct
  whereas the scope of Rule 235 is much wider and
G
  compulsory retirement can be ordered in the Bank's
  interest. The fact that the two Rules operate in different
  fields is also clear from the varying qualifying service and
  that those who retire under Rule 235 are given some
  additional financial benefits as a solatium for having to
H
      r     MUNDRIKA DUBEY AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR                  165
"'               AND ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

           go despite the fact that their efficiency has in no manner A
           been impaired and merely because Rule 235 also talks
           about the payment of contributory provident fund and
           gratuity it does not take away the right to retire


 .
 •
           compulsorily those who have reached the age of 50 years
           and have completed 30 years of service and whose B
           retirement is in the Bank's interest. Therefore the
           action taken was justified under Rule 235. [Para 8]
           [165-C, D, E, F, G]
                2. It is not for this Court to opine as to who should be
           retained in service and who should be retired and at what          c
           stage and situation as this is a matter to be left to the
           exclusive discretion of the employer. The facts of the case
           show that the Bank was not o.nly heavily over staffed but
           was also running into huge losses and substantial
           pruning which would undoubtedly be hurtful, was D
           required for its survival. [Para 9] [169-A, B]
                CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 1468
           of 2008.
                From the final Order dated 7 .12 .2005 of the High Court of   E
           Judicature at Patna in LP.A No. 1184/2004.
               Priya Hingorani (for M/s. Hingorani & Associates) for the
     '.(   Appellants.
                Shravan Kumar, B.P. Yadav, Sanjeev Malhotra, Gopal            F
           Singh and Manish Kumar for the Respondents.
                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. Leave granted.
                 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated G
           December 7, 2005 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court
     ~     whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
           October 12, 2004 dismissing the Writ Petition has been
           confirmed. The facts of the case are as under:
                                                                          H
    166       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 3 S.C.R.


A         3. The appellants were appointed as Class IV employees
   i.e. Peons in the respondent-Bank in the year 1971. They have
   been compulsorily retired by the Bank vide order dated June 5,
   2004 made purportedly under Rules 232 and 235 of the Bihar
   Rajya Shakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (hereinafter referred
B to as the "Rules"). Aggrieved against the order· dated June 5,
  2004, the appellants filed several writ petitions in the Patna High    ._
   Court raising pleas, inter-alia, that the action taken by the Bank
  was not justified under Rule 232 as they had not been retired
  compulsorily on the ground of inefficiency and that Rule 235
c was not a source of power so as to justify an order of compulsory
  retirement as it only dealt with the grant of contributory provident
  fund and gratuity to those employees who had reached the age
  of 50 years and had completed 30 years of service at the time
  of retirement. In response to the notice issued by the High Court,
  the respondent-Bank filed its reply. It was, inter-alia, pointed out
0
  that the Bank was grossly over-staffed and being inefficiently
  run with the result that it had sustained huge losses that had
  brought it to a precarious financial position, and that before the
  action had actually been taken against the appellants, a
  committee had been set-up which had examined the entire
E structure of the Bank and as a follow-up a large number of offices
  and Branch Offices had been closed and a consequent re-
  structuring made of those which still continued to operate. It was
  further highlighted that the over-staffing of the Bank was evident     '#. •
  as against the total requirement of 166 Peons, 507 had in fact
F been appointed and that the decision to compulsorily retire the
  appellants had been taken with hesitation and as one of the
  measures necessary to ensure the survival of the Bank. It was
  also pointed out that the Board of Directors in its meeting held
  on December 24, 2003 had examined the relevant facts and
G concluded that in the first phase, compulsory retirement should
  be ordered of lower grade employees who had completed 30
  years of service and 50 years of age. A copy of these
  proceedings have been appended as Annexure P-1 to the Paper
  Book.
H
          MUNDRIKA DUBEY AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR                  167
               AND ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]

               4. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated October A
         12, 2004 accepted the explanation tendered by the respondent
         insofar as the factual aspect was concerned and also observed
         that Rule 232 was not applicable in such a case whereas Rule
         235 was in fact applicable and accordingly dismissed the Writ
         Petition, as already mentioned above. The appeal filed before B
It'      the Division Bench of the High· Court was also dismissed.
                5. Ms. Priya Hingorani, the learned counsel for the
~        appellants has forcefully argued that Rule 235 on which the
         respondents had placed reliance for dispensing with the
         services of the appellants by way of compulsory retirement was c
         not in fact a source of power as it only dealt with the payment of
         gratuity and provident fund to a certain category of employees
         and that it was only under Rule 232 that an employee could be
~"i"''
         compulsorily retired and that too on the ground of inefficiency
         and as it was not the case of the respondent-Bank that the D
         appellants were inefficient, the impugned action was unjustified.
         It has also been urged that the appellants had put in more than
         30 years of service with the Bank and if any re-structuring was
         to be made so as to make Bank's working more efficient, it
         would have been appropriate to dispense with the staff at the E
         top i.e. senior officers of the Bank rather than the low paid Class


,        IV employees such as the appellants.
               6. These arguments have been controverted by Shri
         Shravan Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the respondents
         who has pointed out that Rule 235 was itself the source of power   F
         and operated in a field different from Rule 232 and that it was
         not for this Court to interfere so as to determine as to which
         employee should be retrenched first, and who later, as this was
         a matter for the internal administration of the Bank.
                                                                            G
              7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
    ~    gone through the record. Rules 232 and 235 are reproduced
         herein below:
              "Rule 232: The Bank may, any bank employee who has
              committed 21 years of duty and 25 years of total service , H
    168       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 3 S.C.R.    ...

A         calculated from the date of his first appointment to retire
          from the Bank's services if it is considered that the
          efficiency or conduct of the employee is not such as to
          justify his retention in service. Where any bank employee
          is so required to retire.. no claim to any special
B         compensation shall be entertained.
          Rule 235: A person who retires voluntarily .or is required to
          be retired compulsorily in bank's interest on reaching the
          age of 50 years completing 30 years of service shall be
          entitled to contributory provident fund and gratuity as
c         admissible."
         8. Concededly the action against the appellants has not
  been taken under Rule 232 which deals with the compulsory
  retirement of an employee who has put in 21 years of duty and
  25 years of total service if it is considered that the efficiency or    "'\-
D
  the conduct of the employee does not justify his retention in
  service. Rule 235 however talks about compulsory retirement
  in the Bank's interest of those who have reached the age of 50
  years and have completed 30 years of service and also talks
  about the benefit of contributory provident fund and gratuity, as
E admissible to such employees. Undoubtedly, action under Rule
  232 can only be taken if the employee concerned is inefficient
  or is guilty of misconduct whereas the scope of Rule 235 is
  much wider and compulsory retirement can be ordered in the              ).

  Bank's interest. The fact that the two Rules operate in different
F fields is also clear from the varying qualifying service and that
  those who retire under Rule 235 are given some additional
  financial benefits as a solatium for having to go despite the fact
  that their efficiency has in no manner been impaired and merely
  because Rule 235 also talks about the payment of contributory
G provident fund and gratuity it does not take away the right to
  retire compulsorily those who have reached the age of 50 years
  and have completed 30 years of service and whose retirement
  is in the Bank's interest. We therefore endorse the observations
  of the High Court that the action taken was justified under Rule
H 235, as correct.
           MUNDRIKA DUBEY AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR                   169
    .,
                AND ORS. [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J]

               9. We are equally of the opinion that it is not for this Court A
         to opine as to who should be retained in service and who should
         be retired and at what stage and situation as this is a matter to
         be left to the exclusive discretion of the employer. The facts of
         the case show that the Bank was not only heavily over staffed
         but was also running into huge losses and substantial pruning B
         which would undoubtedly be hurtful, was required for its survival.
              10. We accordingly find no merit in the appeal. Dismissed
         with no order as to costs.

I
         B.B.B.                                       Appeal dismissed.      c