Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 410 (AP)

C. R. Damodar Reddy v. Government of India

2002-03-13

body2002
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Sudershan Reddy, Sri Parameshwar Reddy and Sri Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respective parties. ( 2 ) CERTAIN Specialist Officers of Central Bank of India had filed the present writ petition wherein the validity of the voluntary retirement scheme initiated by the Central bank of India 3rd respondent herein, as well as proper interpretation of salient features of the specified scheme fall for consideration. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief are as follows: ( 4 ) THE writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in excluding Specialist Officers from the coverage of Central Bank of India Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2001, in short hereinafter referred to as "cbievrs-2001", as per Clause 4. 2 (a) of Annexure-I to the said scheme as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Voluntary Retirement scheme prepared and approved by respondents 1 and 2 and consequently set-aside the same extending the said benefit of CBIEVRS-2001 to the petitioners and pass such other suitable orders. ( 5 ) THOUGH several details had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, all those details may not be necessary for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition. It is stated that the 3rd respondent-Bank is a Nationalised Bank and is governed by the Government of India guidelines and inasmuch as the Government cannot discuss with each and every Bank to decide the policies, Public Sector Banks and Scheduled Banks constituted a platform in the name of Indian Banks Association, in short hereinafter referred to as "iba" -2nd respondent herein, and IBA is working as a bridge between the Scheduled banks and the Government of India in formulating the policies. When the Government of India-1st respondent herein, had taken a decision to cut the size of the staff in the Nationalised banks which are the members of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent was asked to prepare the exist policy for the bank employees and the 2nd respondent prepared a draft Voluntary Retirement scheme, hereinafter referred to as "vrs". When the Government of India-1st respondent herein, had taken a decision to cut the size of the staff in the Nationalised banks which are the members of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent was asked to prepare the exist policy for the bank employees and the 2nd respondent prepared a draft Voluntary Retirement scheme, hereinafter referred to as "vrs". After drafting the VRS, the 1st respondent advised the 2nd respondent to circulate the said scheme among the Nationalised Banks instructing them to introduce the said scheme after obtaining their Boards approval and almost all the Nationalised banks had introduced the said VRS without any basic changes and no doubt the 1st respondent also clarified that the individual banks have liberty to give some more benefits other than provided by the scheme, but not to dilute the scheme as such. However, the 3rd respondent after some delay had introduced the said VRS and the said scheme is CBIEVRS-2001. It is also stated that in CBIEVRS-200i, the scheme is open from 22-2-2001 to 8-3-2001 and those who intend to opt for voluntary retirement should submit the applications in prescribed forms during that period. It is also stated that even though the 3rd respondent declared that Board of Directors had approved the scheme for voluntary retirement on the basis of the draft scheme circulated by the 2nd respondent with prior consent of the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent made basic change in CBIEVRS-2001 without the consent of the 1st respondent. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent categorically mentioned that all the existing Specialist Officers are not eligible, but as per the scheme circulated by the 2nd respondent with the consent of the 1st respondent, Specialist Officers/employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed it are not eligible. Hence, this deviation is totally arbitrary and illegal. Several other details also had been mentioned how the 3rd respondent will not suffer in any way if the VRS as proposed as such is implemented. ( 6 ) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Board of Directors of the Central bank of India approved the scheme of VRS as CBIEVRS-2001 and the said scheme was formulated on the basis of the draft scheme circulated by IBA with the prior consent of the Government of India. ( 6 ) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Board of Directors of the Central bank of India approved the scheme of VRS as CBIEVRS-2001 and the said scheme was formulated on the basis of the draft scheme circulated by IBA with the prior consent of the Government of India. It is also stated that though it is only the Specialist Officers/ employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed it who are ineligible to apply for VRS under the scheme, the scheme provides that the banks are to take care to ensure that there are skilled and qualified workers and staff are not given the option to apply for voluntary retirement. As such it would be in order for a bank if it is to keep out Specialist Officers/ employees as a category of employees ineligible to apply for voluntary retirement under the scheme. Certain allegations relating to the proposal of reduction of age from 60 to 58 years also had been referred to. It is also further stated that it is legally permissible for an employer to formulate a scheme for early separation to a specific section of its employees and keep out another section and hence the contention of the writ petitioners that equal opportunity should to given not only in employment, service conditions, promotion policy etc. , but also in the matter relating to cessation of employment cannot be sustained and in the absence of any violation of their service conditions, the writ petitioners have no legal right to seek a writ of mandamus directing the Management to bring the Specialist Officers also within the purview of VRS. It is further stated that IBA had not given any clarification of Dena bank on the eligibility or otherwise of Specialist Officers to opt for VRS and Dena bank possibly had referred to the relevant provisions contained in the salient features of the VRS as approved by the Government of India and intimated to the Public Sector banks vide IBA s circular letter No. PD/ CIR/76/ga/933, dated 31-8-2000. ( 7 ) THE 3rd respondent had filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations and taking a specific stand as follows: ( 8 ) IT is submitted that it is essentially the prerogative of the Management to decide who should be given the option of voluntary retirement keeping in mind the objectives of the scheme formulated by the bank based on the modal scheme circulated by Indian Banks Association which also envisages the following aspects: (A) The Management of the bank can decide which category of employees is to be excluded from the purview of VRS; (b) The bank has to take care to ensure that the highly skilled and qualified workers and staff are not given the option; and (c) There shall be no recruitment against vacancies arising due to introduction of the VRS. It is submitted that the Central bank of India requires the services of the Specialist Officers especially in the post of VRS scheme period and therefore they cannot be given the option of voluntary retirement. The Specialist Officers for the purpose of VRS form a class by themselves and cannot equate themselves with other officers who are doing operational work. Thus by not giving the option of voluntary retirement to Specialist Officers, it cannot be inferred that the bank has committed any violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India or otherwise. Further, it cannot be presumed that the bank has acted in an irrational, unreasonable or arbitrary manner by excluding the officers in the Specialist category from the purview of VRS. The Board of Directors of the bank have got ample discretion to formulate various policy decisions including the VRS. In the absence of any violation of their service conditions, the writ petitioners have no legal right to seek a writ of mandamus directing the Management to bring the Specialist Officers also within the purview of VRS. ( 9 ) AN additional counter-affidavit also was filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent wherein it was stated that the writ petitioners and certain other Specialist Officers had submitted an application seeking the benefit of voluntary retirement under CBIEVRS-2001 and the competent authority had rejected the said request in terms of Clause 4. 2 (a) of the above scheme on the ground that they are ineligible to apply under the above scheme. 2 (a) of the above scheme on the ground that they are ineligible to apply under the above scheme. ( 10 ) SRI Sudarshan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners had drawn my attention to the salient features of the VRS and the scheme for sabbatical leave proposed by IBA. The learned Counsel had specifically pointed out the eligibility column and under ineligible column it is stated that only "specialist officers/ employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed it, employees/ Officers serving abroad under special arrangements/bonds" will not be eligible for VRS. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Clause 4. 2 (a) of CBIEVRS-2001 and had pointed out that it specifies "all existing Specialist Officers". The learned Counsel had maintained that this is in fact in deviation of the salient features of the VRS as approved by the 1st respondent and circulated by the 2nd respondent in this regard. The learned Counsel further submitted that it is a case of arbitrary action and also discriminatory one and definitely to that extent the said action cannot be said to be valid in the light of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel also had pointed out in fact further clarifications had been issued by several banks like Dena bank, Vijaya bank and others wherein it was clarified that for Specialist Officers/employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed it, alone will fall under the test of ineligibility and not otherwise and in this view of the matter also, the impugned action is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory. ( 11 ) SRI Parameshwar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent had stated that the salient features of VRS proposed by IBA are self-explanatory in nature and hence there is no legal application as such on the part of the concerned banks to implement the same in strict sense. It was also contended that even otherwise, these are all schemes in the form of guidelines which cannot be said to have any statutory force and it is for the respective Board of Directors of the concerned banks to take decisions in this regard how the scheme has to be implemented in the best interest of the said Banking Institutions. It was also contended that even otherwise, these are all schemes in the form of guidelines which cannot be said to have any statutory force and it is for the respective Board of Directors of the concerned banks to take decisions in this regard how the scheme has to be implemented in the best interest of the said Banking Institutions. ( 12 ) SRI Chandra Sekhar Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents 2 and 3 with all vehemence had contended that the salient features of VRS clearly go to show that the scheme itself is discretionary and under the column "other Features", it is specifically stated that it will be the prerogative of the bank s management either to accept a request for VRS or to reject the same depending upon the requirement of the bank. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to 5everal portions of CB1evrs-2001 and had contended that if the whole scheme is taken info consideration, it is clear that it is within the discretion of the bank to specify the categories relating to the eligibility or ineligibility and because of the mere fact that there is some slight deviation in Clause 4. 2 (a) of CBIEVRS-2001 to the ineligibility criterion specified in the salient features of VRS, it cannot be said that the said action is arbitrary or discriminatory. The exit policy is always within the discretion of Management and it is not a case of discrimination relating to any of the service conditions. Further it was contended that it is a class created as a separate class and hence it cannot be said that the said action suffers from either bias or arbitrariness or the vice of discrimination, so as to attract Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 13 ) HEARD all the Counsel on record at length and also perused the material available on record. ( 14 ) THOUGH lengthy arguments had been advanced, only short question that has to be decided in the present writ petition is whether the deviation of the Central Bank of India in implementing the VRS under CBIEVRS-2001 satisfying the eligibility criterion under Clause 4. ( 14 ) THOUGH lengthy arguments had been advanced, only short question that has to be decided in the present writ petition is whether the deviation of the Central Bank of India in implementing the VRS under CBIEVRS-2001 satisfying the eligibility criterion under Clause 4. 2 (a) to all the existing Specialist Officers, is arbitrary or discriminatory in the light of the ineligibility criterion of excluding only the Specialist Officers/employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed it, under the salient features of the VRS as approved by the 1st respondent and circulated by the 2nd respondent. ( 15 ) FOR the purpose of deciding this question, it may be relevant to look into certain of the essential aspects. In the salient features of Voluntary Retirement scheme and scheme for Sabbatical Leave proposed by IBA, under the column of Eligibility, it is specified as follows:"all permanent employees with 15 years of service or 40 years of age. " The beginning portion of the column "ineligible", which may be relevant, reads as follows: "specialist Officers/employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed it. . . . . . "but, however, it is essential to note that certain other categories also had been specified and apart from it, it was also specifically stated "any other category of employees as may be specified by the Board. " It is also essential to note the conditions under the column "other features" under the salient features of the VRS, which reads as under:1. It will be the prerogative of the bank s management either to accept a request for VRS or to reject the same depending upon the requirement of the bank. 2. Care will have to be taken to ensure that highly skilled and qualified workers and staff are not given the option. 3. There will be no recruitment against vacancies arising due to VRS. 4. Before introducing VRS banks must complete their manpower planning and identify the number of officers/employees who can be considered under the scheme. 5. Sanction of VRS and any new recruitment should be only in accordance with the manpower plan. "from Condition No. 1, it is clear that it is the prerogative of the bank s management either to accept a request for VRS or to reject the same depending upon the requirement of the bank. 5. Sanction of VRS and any new recruitment should be only in accordance with the manpower plan. "from Condition No. 1, it is clear that it is the prerogative of the bank s management either to accept a request for VRS or to reject the same depending upon the requirement of the bank. It is needless to say that this is only a scheme no doubt approved by the 1st respondent and circulated by the 2nd respondent, which is purely discretionary in nature having no statutory sanction as such. It may be also relevant to have a look at Clause 4. 2 of CBIEVRS-2001, which specifies as follows:"however, the employees falling in the following categories are not eligible to seek voluntary retirement under the scheme: (a) All existing Specialist Officers; (b) Officers/employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed it; (c) Employees serving abroad under special arrangements/bonds; (d) Employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated/pending or who are under suspension; (e) Employees appointed on contract basis; (f) Any other category of employees as may be specified by the Management. "the writ petitioners are more aggrieved of Clause 4. 2 (a) i. e. , "alt existing Specialist Officers", which is in deviation of the salient features aforesaid. Clause 9, dealing with general conditions of the said scheme specifies several conditions and Clauses 9. 6 and also 9. 17 may be relevant for our purpose, which read, respectively, as under:"the bank shall have absolute discretion either to accept or reject the request of an employee seeking Voluntary Retirement under the scheme depending upon the requirement of the bank without assigning any reason/s. However, the concerned member will be informed only about the status of his application i. e. , either acceptance or rejection through proper channel. " "there will be no recruitment against vacancies arising out of voluntary retirement under this scheme". Clause 11, dealing with "interpretation", specifies as follows: "in case of the doubt or difficulty in the interpretation of the terms and conditions of meaning or with regard to calculation of the quantum of any benefit under this scheme, the decision of the General Manager (PRS), Central Office shall be final and binding on all concerned. "a reading of the whole scheme along with the salient features of the VRS clearly show that it is only discretionary. "a reading of the whole scheme along with the salient features of the VRS clearly show that it is only discretionary. It is no doubt true that the Dena bank, Personal Department, Head Office has circulated a clarification, which reads as follows:"in Para 4. 2 of the said scheme, it was inter alia laid down that the following category of employees are not eligible to seek Voluntary Retirement under the said scheme. 4. 2 Specialist Officer. Queries have been received regarding criteria of Specialist Officers who are eligible to opt for Voluntary Retirement scheme. Based on the clarification received from Indian Banks Association, it is informed that Para 4. 2 (a) of the Dena Bank Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2000 is to be read as follows: Specialist Officers/employees who have executed service bonds and have not completed it. You are advised to inform all concerned employees accordingly. Please acknowledge receipt. "no doubt, this is a clarification issued by the Dena Bank and it is the concern of the said Bank and merely because a particular Bank had adopted the salient features as specified, it cannot be said that the action of the 3rd respondent in this regard is either arbitrary or discriminatory. A specific stand had been taken in the counter-affidavits that all the existing Specialist Officers of the Central Bank of India form a separate class. No doubt an attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioners to convince that no purpose will be served by treating the Specialist Officers as a separate class not allowing them to go into the main stream. However, it is a matter concerned with the Management of the particular Banking Institution and the wisdom of the Board of Directors in implementing a particular scheme. As already pointed out, these schemes as such have no statutory force or statutory sanction and these are more discretionary in nature and at the best they can be said to be guidelines issued by the concerned Banking Institutions and for enforcement of such guidelines, prima facie, a writ of mandamus does not lie at all. As already pointed out, these schemes as such have no statutory force or statutory sanction and these are more discretionary in nature and at the best they can be said to be guidelines issued by the concerned Banking Institutions and for enforcement of such guidelines, prima facie, a writ of mandamus does not lie at all. It is no doubt true that in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S. M. V. S. J. M. S. Trust v. V. R. Rudani, AIR 1989 SC 1607 , it was observed:"here again we may point out that, mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to be enforced is not imposed by the statute. Commenting on the development of this law, professor De Smith states: "to be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract. " (Judicial Review of Administrative Act, 4th Ed. P. 540 ). We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into water-tight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. Technicalities should not come in the way of granting that relief under Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention urged for the appellants on the maintainability of the writ petition. "however, in the light of the view expressed by me above that the salient features of VRS as approved by the 1st respondent and circulated by the 2nd respondent are more in the form of guidelines and discretionary in nature, a writ or direction in the nature prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially in the light of the fact that already certain applications had been made and the competent authority of the Central Banks of India had taken a decision rejecting the same on the ground that the said scheme cannot be applied in such cases. ( 16 ) IN the light of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. ( 16 ) IN the light of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. But inasmuch as the dispute is in relation to some policy and its implementation, this Court makes no order as to costs.