http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: CHAIRMAN, CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M. S. JASRA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/03/1992

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1100            1992 SCR  (2)  68  1992 SCC  (2) 484        JT 1992 (2)   203  1992 SCALE  (1)616

ACT:          Banking Regulation Act, 1949:     Section 45-Amalgamation of banks-Scheme of amalgamation- Conditions  of  service in respect in respect  of  employees continued  after amalgamation-Age of  superannuation-Whether to  be  the  same as was available  in  transferor  Bank  or whether  to  be at par with the employees of  same  rank  or status in the transferee Bank.

HEADNOTE:     Respondent  No.  I  who was a  Banking  Officer  in  the Reserve  Bank  of India applied for the  post  of  Assistant General Manager in Lakshmi Commercial Bank.  he was selected for the said post and he joined in March 1983. In 1985 on an application made by the Reserve Bank under Section 45(1)  of the  Banking  Regulation Act,1949,  the  Central  Government passed  an order of moratorium under  Section 45(2)  of  the said Act, in respect of Lakshmi Commercial Bank and it  came to  be  amalgamated with Canara bank.  The services  of  the employees  of  Lakshmi Commercial Bank were  continued  with Canara Bank, and respondent No. 1 was fitted in the  post of Divisional Manager in Canara Bank, and respondent No. 1  was fitted in the post of Divisional Manager in Canara Bank.  He claimed  that he should be fitted against a higher  post  by virtue  of  his  position as Assistant  General  Manager  in Lakshmi  Commercial  Bank.   He also  claimed  that  he  was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age  of 60  years  which was the age of  superannuation  in  Lakshmi Commercial  Bank.  His representations were rejected by  the petitioner  Bank and the Reserve Bank Thereafter  respondent No.  1 filed a writ petition before the High Court  claiming the relief that he should be allowed to  continue in service till be attains the age of 60 years.      The  High  Court allowed the Writ  Petition.  Aggrieved against  the  High Court’s order,  the  petitioner-bank  has preferred this appeal by special leave.      The  appellant-bank  contended  that on  the  basis  of Section 45 of the                                                        69 Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the consequent amalgamation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

of  Lakshmi  Commercial Bank with Canara bank,  the  service conditions  under  Lakshmi  Commercial  Bank  would  not  be available  to the respondent No. 1; and that the  terms  and conditions   of   service   applicable   to   employees   of corresponding  rank  and status in Canara  Bank  would  only apply.      Allowing the appeal, this Court,      HELD:  1.  Respondent  No.  1 could  not  claim  to  be governed by the age of superannuation of 60 years applicable to him in Lakshmi Commercial Bank.   When his services  were continued  on amalgamation of Lakshmi Commercial  Bank  with Canara Bank, he became an employee of Canara  Bank and  was, therefore, entitled only to the right given by proviso  (ii) to  clause  (i)  of sub-section (5) of  Section  45  of  the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 which entitled him to the  same terms  and  conditions  of  service  as  employees  of   the corresponding  rank  or  status  in  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. [80D,E]      2.    It  is  not  necessary  that  every   scheme   of amalgamation framed under sub-section (4) of Section 45 must provide  for continuance of service of all the employees  of the banking company in the transferee bank; but where such a provision is made it must contain a provision as required by provision is made it must contain a provision as required by proviso  in clause (i). This is clear from the use of  the word  ‘may’ in the opening words of sub-section (5) and  the word ‘shall’ in the proviso.  If the scheme for amalgamation provides for continuance of the service of the employees  in the  transferee  bank, then beyond a period of  three  years from  the  date  on which the scheme is  sanctioned  by  the Central Government, the transferee bank cannot  discriminate between   such   employees  and  its  other   employees   of corresponding  rank  or status.  The only right of  such  an employee  whose  service is so continued is,  therefore,  to claim  parity  with  the employees of  the  transferee  bank itself  of corresponding rank or status  subject  equivalent qualification and experience and no more.  The right of such an employee is provided in the proviso to clause (i) and not in the earlier enacting part of clause (i) of sub-section                                                   70 (5) of Section 45 of the Act as claimed by respondent No.  1 and upheld by the High Court. [78F,G]      State Bank of Travancore v. Elias Elias & Ors.,  [1971] 2 SCR 28, referred to.      3.  Clauses 10 and 12 of the Amalgamation Scheme merely incorporate  the  matter  specified in clause  (i)  and  the prviso  thereunder.   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 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. [79-H; 80-A]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal No. 1054  of 1992      From  the  Judgement and Order dated 20.9.1991  of  the Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No 2199 of 1991.      K.N.  Bhat, S.R. Bhat, Mrs. L.M. Bhat and Alok  Agarwal for the Appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    S.C.  Gupta H.N. Salve, Inder Jeet Sharma, S.P.  Sharma and H.S. Parihar for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VERMA,  J.   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.      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 of 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) of Section 45 which was  approved by  the  Central  Government  on  August  24,  1985.   As  a consequence thereof, the services of the                                                        71 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.      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  Bank’s 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 Canara Bank till he attains the  age of  60  years.  Hence, this petition for  grant  of  special leave  to appeal against the High Court’s Judgment has  been filed.  The only question for decision herein is that of the age of superannuation.      Leave is granted.      The  contention of Shri K.N. Bhat, learned counsel  for the appellant, Canara Bank, is that the relevant  provisions contained in Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act,  1949 read   with  the  materials  portions  of  the  scheme   for amalgamation  framed  by  the Reserve  Bank  show  that  the employees  of the Lakshmi commercial Bank who are  continued in  the service of the Canara Bank, on amalgamation  of  the Lakshmi  Commercial Bank with the Canara Bank are  entitled, on  their integration in the service of the Canara Bank,  to the  same remuneration and the same terms and conditions  of service  which  are  applicable to the  other  employees  of corresponding  rank or status in the Canara Bank and not  to any  higher  or  larger benefits irrespective  of  the  fact

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

whether the remuneration and terms                                                        72 and  conditions  of service of the concerned  employee  were better  or  worse  prior  to  amalgamation  in  the  Lakshmi commercial Bank.  Shri Harish N. Salve, learned counsel  for the  respondent  Reserve  Bank of India  has  supported  the contention of Shri Bhat. On the other hand, Shri S.C. Gupta, learned  counsel  for  respondent  No.  1,  M.S.  Jasra  has attempted  to support the High Court’s conclusion  including the reasons therefor.      It  would  be appropriate at this stage  to  quote  the portion  of Section 45 of the Banking regulation  Act,  1949 and Scheme for Amalgamation framed by the Reserve Bank under Section 45(4) of the Act:-          "45.  Power  of Reserve Bank of  apply  to  Central          Government for suspension of business by a  banking          company and to prepare scheme of reconstitution  or          amalgamation:-    (1)   Notwithstanding    anything          contained in the foregoing provisions of this  Part          or  in  any  other law or any  agreement  or  other          instrument,  for the time being in force, where  it          appears  to  the Reserve Bank that  there  is  good          reason so to do, the Reserve Bank may apply to  the          Central  Government for an order or  moratorium  in          respect of a banking company.               (2) The Central Government, after  considering          the application made by th Reserve Bank under  sub-          section  (1),  may  make  an  order  of  moratorium          staying  the  commencement or  continuance  of  all          actions  and proceedings against the company for  a          fixed  period of time on such terms and  conditions          as  it thinks fit and proper and may from  time  to          time  extend the period so however that  the  total          period of moratorium shall not exceed six months.              (3)........              (4)  During  the period of moratorium,  if  the          Reserve Bank is satisfied that -               (a) in the public interest; or               (b) in the interest of the depositors; or               (c)  in order to secure the proper  management               of the banking company; or                                                        73                 (d)  in the interests of the banking  system               of  the       country  as a  whole,  -  it  is               necessary  so  to  do, the  Reserve  Bank  may               prepare a scheme -                (i)  for  the reconstruction of  the  banking               company,  or                 (ii)  for  the amalgamation of  the  banking               company    with any other banking  institution               (in  this        section referred to  as  "the               transferee bank"                  (5)   The  scheme  aforesaid  may   contain               provisions         for  all  or  any  of   the               following matters,        namely:-            XXX                    XXX                 XXX                  (i) the continuance of the services of  all                  the   employees  of  the  banking   company                  (excepting  such  of  them  as  not   being                  workmen   within   the   meaning   of   the                  Industrial    Disputes   Act,   1947    are                  specifically  mentioned in the  Scheme)  in                  the   banking   company   itself   on   its                  reconstruction  or, as the case may be,  in                  the    transferee   bank   at   the    same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

                remuneration  and  on the  same  terms  and                  conditions  of  service,  which  they  were                  getting  or  as the case may be,  by  which                  they   were  being  governed,   immediately                  before the date of the order of moratorium:               Provided  that the scheme the shall contain  a               provision that-                  (i) the banking company shall pay or  grant                  not later than the expiry of the period  of                  three  years  from the date  on  which  the                  scheme   is  sanctioned  by   the   Central                  Government, to the said employees the  same                  remuneration   and  the  same   terms   and                  condition of service as are, at the time of                  such   payment  or  grant,  applicable   to                  employees  of corresponding rank or  status                  of  a  comparable  banking  company  to  be                  determined for this purpose by the  Reserve                  Bank  (whose determination in this  respect                  shall be final);                  (ii) the transferee bank shall pay or grant                  not later than the expiry of the  aforesaid                  period of three years, to the said                                                        74                  employees  the  same remuneration  and  the                  same  terms  and conditions of  service  as                  are, at the time of such payment or  grant,                  applicable   to  the  other  employees   of                  corresponding   rank  or  status   of   the                  transferee    bank    subject    to     the                  qualifications  and experience of the  said                  employees  being the same as or  equivalent                  to  those  of such other employees  of  the                  transferee bank:          Provided  further that if in any case under  clause          (ii)  of the first proviso any doubt or  difference          arises   as  to  whether  the   qualification   and          experience  of  any of the said employees  are  the          same  as  or equivalent to the  qualifications  and          experience of the other employees of  corresponding          rank or status of the transferee bank the doubt  of          difference shall be referred,before the expiry of a          period  of three years from the date of payment  or          grant mentioned in that clause to the Reserve  Bank          whose decision thereon shall be final;          XXX                   XXX                     XXX              (8)  On  and from the date of the  coming  into          operation  of the scheme or any provision  thereof,          the scheme, or such proviso shall be binding on the          banking  company  or, as the case may  be,  on  the          transferee  bank  and  any  other  banking  company          concerned  in the amalgamation and also on all  the          member,   depositors   and  other   creditors   and          employees  of  each  of  those  companies  or   the          transferee bank and on any other person having  any          right  or  liability in relation to  any  of  those          companies  or  the transferee  bank  including  the          trustee or other persons managing, or connected  in          any other manner with, any provident fund or  other          fund maintained by any companies or the  transferee          bank.          XXX                    XXX                    XXX               (14) The provisions of this section and of any          scheme   made   under   it   shall   have    effect          notwithstanding anything to the contrary  contained

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

        in any other provisions of this Act or in any other          law or any agreement, award or other instrument for          the time being in force.                                                        75               (15)  In this section , "banking  institution"          means  any banking company and includes  the  State          Bank   of   India  or  a  subsidiary  bank   or   a          corresponding new bank.          Explanation  -  References in this section  to  the          terms and conditions of service as applicable to an          employee shall not be construed as extending to the          rank and status of such employee.     The relevant clauses of the Amalgamation Scheme are : -               "(10) All the employees of the transferor bank          other than those specified in the schedule referred          to  in the succeeding paragraph shall  continue  in          service and be deemed to have been appointed by the          transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the          same  terms  and  conditions  of  service  as  were          applicable to such employees immediately before the          close of business on 27th April, 1985.               Provided that the employees of the  transferor          bank  who have, by notice in writing given  to  the          transferor  or  the  transferee bank  at  any  time          before  the expiry of one month next following  the          date  on which this scheme has been  sanctioned  by          the  Central Government, intimated their  intention          of  not becoming employees of the transferee  bank,          shall   be   entitled  to  the  payment   of   such          compensation,  if any, under the provisions of  the          Industrial  Disputes  Act, 1947 and  such  pension,          gratuity   provident  fund  and  other   retirement          benefits as may be ordinarily admissible under  the          rules  of  authorisation  of  the  transferor  bank          immediately  before  the close of the  business  on          27th April, 1985.               Provided  further  that  the  transferee  bank          shall in respect of the employees of the transferor          bank  who  are deemed to have been  appointed  a  s          employees of the transferee bank be deemed also  to          have been taken over the liability for the  payment          of retrenchment compensation in the event of  their          being  retrenched  while  in  the  service  of  the          transferee  bank  on the basis that  their  service          continues  and  has not been interrupted  by  their          transfer to the transferee bank.          XXX                       XXX                   XXX                                                        76               (12)  The transferee bank shall on the  expiry          of period not longer than three years from the date          on which this scheme is sanctioned, pay or grant to          the  employees  of  the transferor  bank  the  same          remuneration  and the same terms and conditions  of          service  as  are  applicable to  the  employees  of          corresponding rank or status of the transferee bank          subject to the qualifications and experience on the          said  employees  of the transferor bank  being  the          same  as  or  equivalent to  those  of  such  other          employees of the transferee bank.               Provided  that  if  any  doubt  or  difference          arises   as  to  whether  the   qualifications   or          experience  of  any of the said employees  are  the          same  as  or equivalent to  the  qualification  and          experience of the other employees of  corresponding          rank or status of the transferee bank or as to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

        procedure  of  principles  to be  adopted  for  the          fixation of the pay of the employees in the  scales          of pay of the employees in the scales of pay of the          transferee  bank, the doubt or difference shall  be          referred  to  the  Reserve  Bank  of  India   whose          decision thereon shall be final".      The  High Court has taken the view that clause  (i)  of sub-section  (5)  of Section 45 read with clause 10  of  the amalgamation   scheme   confers  a  vested  right   on   the transferred  employees  of the Lakshmi  Commercial  Bank  in respect of their terms and conditions of service which could not  be adversely affected as a result of  the  amalgamation with  the Canara Bank and Proviso (ii) in  Section  45(5)(i) and  clause 12 of the Scheme could not take away  or  dilute the  vested  right so conferred by  Section  45(5)(i).   The material portion of the High Court’s Judgment is as under :-          "The mandate of Section 45(5)(i) is that the scheme          which  is  formulated may contain  provisions  with          regard  to employees of the banking  companies  and          such  a scheme should protect the remuneration  and          other  terms  and conditions of  an  employee,  The          second  proviso to Section 45(5)(i) of the  Act  as          well  as  clause 12 of the scheme have to  be  read          harmoniously with Section 45(5)(i) and clause 10 of          the  scheme.  The second proviso was not  meant  to          take away or dilute the rights which are  conferred          by clause (i). Keeping this in view clause 10 of                                                        77          the   scheme  was  formulated  which   specifically          provides  that  the  terms and  conditions  of  the          employees  like  the petitioner shall be  those  as          were  applicable  to them  immediately  before  the          close of business on 27th April, 1985.               Clause 12 of the scheme or the second  proviso          to  Section 45(5)(i) cannot be so read as  to  take          away the vested rights of the transferred employees          which  rights were that their remuneration as  well          as the terms and conditions of service were not  to          be               adversely                affected.          ..............................................   in          the  present  case, on the other hand, there  is  a          statutory assurance contained in Section  45(5)(i).          The  assurance contained in this provision  coupled          with  clause 10 of the scheme gives a right  to  an          employee like the petitioner to continue to  remain          in service till the age of 60 years.".      The question is whether the construction so made by the High  Court of the relevant provisions in Section 45 of  the Act  and  clauses 10 and 12 of the  amalgamation  scheme  is correct.      The  further  question is whether on  that  basis,  the claim of respondent No. 1 as former employee of the  Lakshmi Commercial Bank to retire at the age of 60 years instead  of 58 years is a vested right, as held by the High Court, which cannot  be  taken  away  on  amalgamation  of  the   Lakshmi Commercial Bank with the Canara bank in this manner.      The   Banking  Regulation  Act,  1949  is  an  Act   to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking.  Part III of  the  Act contains Sections 36B to Section 45  under  the heading  ’suspension of business and winding up  of  banking companies’.   Section 45 in Part III provides for the  power of  Reserve  Bank  to apply to the  Central  Government  for suspension  of business of a banking company and to  prepare scheme  of reconstitution or amalgamation.  Sub-section  (1) enables the Reserve Bank to apply to the Central  Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

for  an order of moratorium in respect of a banking  company if there is good reason so to do.  Sub-section (2)  empowers the  Central  Government,  on such  an  application  of  the Reserve  Bank  to  make an order o  moratorium  staying  the commencement  or continuance of all actions and  proceedings against  the banking company for a fixed period of  time  on such  terms and conditions as it thinks fit and  proper  and permits  extension of the period of moratorium so as not  to exceed six months.                                                        78      Sub-section  (4)  then provides for  preparation  of  a scheme  by  the Reserve Bank for the reconstruction  of  the banking company for its amalgamation with any other  banking institution  if  the Reserve Bank is satisfied  that  it  is necessary  so to do in the public interest; or the  interest of the depositors; or to secure the proper management of  he banking  company; or in the interests of the banking  system of the country as a whole.      Sub-section (5) then specifies the provisions which may be made in such a scheme.  It is clause (i) and the provisos thereunder   of sub-section (5) with which we are  concerned. The  opening  words  in sub-section  (5)  are:  "The  scheme aforesaid  may  contain  provisions for all or  any  of  the following matters..."  It is clear that the scheme so framed under sub-section (4) may contain provisions for all or  any of  the  matter  specified in sub-section  (5)  so  that  it enables all or any of the specified matter to be provided in the  scheme prepared under sub-section (4) and  the  matters specified  in the several clauses in sub-section (5) do  not automatically  get  incorporated in such scheme  unless  the scheme specifically includes any such matter.  It means that the matter specified in clause (i) of sub-section (5) is not an invariable term to be read in such a scheme framed  under sub-section  (4)  for amalgamation of  the  banking  company unless  it  is incorporated specifically in  the  scheme  so prepared.   Thus,  such  a scheme may  or  may  not  contain provision  for  the continuance of the services of  all  the employees  of the banking company in the transferee bank  as is  specified  in clause (i).  However, if the  scheme  does provide  for  this  matter,  then  the  continuance  of  the services  of  the employees of the banking  company  in  the transferee bank as provided in clause (i) is subject to  the requirements of the proviso thereunder.  In other words,  it is  not necessary that every scheme of  amalgamation  framed under  sub-section  (4)  must  provide  for  continuance  of services of all the employees of the banking company in  the transferee bank; but where such a provision is made, it must contain  a provision as required by the provisos  in  clause (i).   This  is clear from the use of the word ’may’ in  the opening word of sub-section (5) and the word ’shall’ in  the proviso.  In effect it means that where the scheme  provides for continuance of the services of all the employees of  the banking   company  in  the  transferee  bank  at  the   same remuneration and on the same terms and conditions of service which  they  were getting or, as the case may be,  by  which they were being governed immediately before the date of  the order  of  moratorium,  then  the  scheme  must  contain   a provision  that the transferee bank shall pay or  grant  not later than the expiry of the                                                        79 period  of three years from the date on which the scheme  is sanctioned  by the Central Government to the said  employees the  same remuneration and the same terms and conditions  of service  as  are  applicable  to  the  other  employees   of corresponding rank or status of the transferee bank  subject

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

to  the qualifications and experience of the said  employees being  the  same  as or equivalent to those  of  such  other employees of the transferee bank.      Clause  (i)  read with the proviso in  sub-section  (5) results in enabling the making of a provision in the  scheme of  amalgamation  for  the continuance of  services  of  the employees  of the banking company in the transferee bank  on the  same terms and conditions by which they  were  governed before  the date of the order of moratorium but when such  a provision  is made, the scheme has also to provide that  the transferee  bank  shall grant not later than the  period  of three years the same terms and conditions of service of  the employees  who  are continued, the terms and  conditions  of service in the transferee bank in the corresponding rank  or status,   subject  to  the  requisite   qualifications   and experience.   The  right  of the employees  of  the  banking company in the transferee bank on continuance of the service by  virtue of such a provision in the scheme as provided  in clause  (i)  of  sub-section (5) is  merely  that  which  is contained  in  the  proviso thereunder, that  is,  that  the transferee  bank  would  treat  them at  per  with  its  own employees  of  corresponding rank or status subject  to  the qualifications  and experience irrespective of  the  earlier terms  and  conditions of service.  In other words,  if  the scheme  provides  for  continuance of the  services  of  the employees  in the transferee bank, then beyond a  period  of three years from the date on which the scheme is  sanctioned by  the  Central  Government,  the  transferee  bank  cannot discriminate between such employees and its other  employees of corresponding rank or status.  The only right of such  an employee  whose services is so continued is,  therefore,  to claim  parity  with  the employees of  the  transferee  bank itself of corresponding rank or status subject to equivalent qualifications  and  experience and no more.  The  right  of such  an employee is provided in the proviso to  clause  (i) and  not in the earlier enacting part of clause (i) of  sub- section (5) as claimed by respondent No. 1 and upheld by the High Court.      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                                                        80 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.      Shri S. C. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.  1 placing strong reliance on State Bank of Travancore v. Elias &  Ors., [1971] 2 S.C.R. 28, attempted to support  the  view taken by the High Court.  In our opinion, the 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

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 or 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.   The impugned Judgment of the High Court has, therefore to be set aside  resulting  in  dismissal  of  the  Writ  Petition  of respondent No. 1 filed in the High Court.  Consequently  the Appeal is allowed.  No costs. G.N                                         Appeal allowed.                                                        81