The state bank of india vrs
Powell y. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition was of the view that a harmonious construction should be made between the nature of punishment and the right of an employee who has been visited with a punishment of removal with superannuation benefits with that of Rule 22 I c of the Pension Rules.
Sbi vrs case study solution
I am, therefore, unable to uphold the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent. The specific power to make rules is in Section 49 conferred' upon the Central Government and this power too does not touch upon the service conditions and terms. Branch Manager State Bank of India reported in 1 SCC , the appellant, an employee of State Bank of India, was removed from service on the finding of misconduct recorded by order dated No ground has been made out to interfere with the judgment in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction of W. So, Article 14 does not apply and no discrimination arises. That was a case of termination of service for misconduct and no preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the State Bank of India was not a public authority appears to have been urged in that case. Emphasis added Therefore, we think no interference is called for in these appeals. The list of instances of public authorities held to be such and given in 30 Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts in the State Bank. Is it subject to Government audit?
The Central Board can make regulations only after consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, not inconsistent with the Act and the rules made thereunder, to provide for all matters for which provision is expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act.
Mohandas supra further clarified the intention behind amendment of Regulation 28 and its retrospective application.
He said that around employees from Dena Bank chose to retire instead of joining BoB. He had also not completed 25 years of pensionable service. In State of Himachal Pradesh and others vs.
The Privy Council held that such failure did not give any right of action on the view that the rules amounted only to "a statutory and solemn assurance that the tenure of office, though at pleasure, would not be subject to capricious or arbitrary action, but would be regulated by rule.
based on 25 review