State Bank of Patiala v. Kanwal Nain Singh
KURIAN, J. 1. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved
by the Judgment dated 04.10.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 114 of 2007 in Civil Writ Petition
No. 17426 of 2004. The case has a chequered history. The respondent
joined service in the appellant-Bank on 29.02.1977. The Bank published
a Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its employees on 20.01.2001. The
Scheme was open for its employees from 15.02.2001 to 01.03.2001.
Clause 9 of the Scheme contained a specific provision that the application
once made cannot be withdrawn and the same will be treated as
irrevocable.
2. On the last date of the operation of the Scheme i.e. on
01.03.2001, the respondent submitted his application seeking voluntary
retirement. On the next day, i.e. on 02.03.2001, he sought to withdraw
his application for voluntary retirement. His request was denied as per
the provisions of Clause 9 of the Scheme and he was retired.
3. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Cou rt
challenging the voluntary retirement. As per an interim orde r dated
30.03.2001, the respondent was allowed to continue in service and by a
common Judgment dated 03.04.2002, the writ petition was allowed. The
appellant-Bank challenged the same before this Court. By a Judgment
dated 17.12.2002 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 854-855 of 2002 and other
connected matters, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721, the Judgment of the
High Court was set aside by distinguishing the Scheme that operated in
State Bank of India.
4. The appellant-Bank is a subsidiary of the State Bank of India.
On 30.01.2003, the Bank filed an application for clarification as to whether
the appellant-Bank, being a subsidiary, the benefit of the Judgment would
be available to the appellant-Bank as well. That application was allowed
on 21.01.2004.
861
5. In the meanwhile, the respondent was continuing in service on
the basis of an interim order passed by the High Court. He was promoted
to the Junior Management Grade Scale-I with effect from 01.05.2003.
Since the clarification was allowed on 21.01.2004, as per the orde r
reported in (2004) 2 SCC 193, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant
also, the respondent was voluntarily retired with effect from 29.02.2004.
6. After the retirement of the respondent on 29.02.2004, an ex-
gratia payment of Rs. 14,05,382/- payable under the Scheme was credited
in the account of the respondent on various dates from 31.03.2004 upto
14.05.2004. According to the respondent, neither the same was requested
by him/acceptable to him nor was it accepted.
7. The respondent attempted a review of the Judgment dated
21.01.2004 before this Court. The Review Petition was dismissed on
27.04.2004.
8. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for directio n/
clarification praying for enhanced ex-gratia, on the basis of length of
service actually rendered and scale of pay in the p romoted post.
According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank, the
ex-gratia was, in fact, calculated on the basis of the total length of service,
till the date of actual retirement under the Scheme i.e. 29.03.2001. That
application was withdrawn without prejudice to the liberty to pursue any
alternative remedy, if any, available in accordance with law.
9. The respondent quite ingeniously, it appears, thereafter filed a
fresh writ petition before the High Court, virtually seeking to resurrect
the Judgment which he suffered at the hands of this Court, against which
even the review at the instance of the respondent was dismissed. That
writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, the
Division Bench, in LPA No. 114 of 2007 in Civil Writ Petition No. 17426
of 2004, leading to the impugned Judgment, allowed the same and thus,
the instant appeal.
10. Having extensively heard Mr. Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-Bank and Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent, we find it difficult to appreciate the stand
taken by the High Court. The respondent has suffered a Judgment
when this Court allowed the appeal filed by the Bank and dismissed the
application filed by the respondent, as per the Judgment reported in (2003)
2 SCC 721 and in (2004) 2 SCC 193. It is a Judgment in personam. The
STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. KANWAL NAIN SINGH
[KURIAN, J.]
High Court, with great respect, was not correct in it s approach in
reopening the case of the respondent on the basis of subsequent Judgment
of this Court in Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar ,
reported in (2007) 8 SCC 141 in the matter of withdrawal of application
for voluntary retirement before the same is accepted. As far as the
respondent is concerned, his fate was sealed when this Court declare d
that he was bound by the provision in the Scheme that the appl ication
once made was irrevocable. For all intents and purposes, the respondent
is bound by that Judgment for ever.
11. That apart, all that the respondent prayed for in the interlocutory
application, which was withdrawn with liberty, was to seek enhanced
ex-gratia. It appears that under the cover of the libert y granted at the
time of withdrawal to pursue any remedy, if available and in accordance
with law, a fresh writ petition was filed, which ultimat ely led to the
impugned Judgment. In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal.
The impugned Judgment dated 04.10.2008 in LPA No. 114 of 2008 passed
by the High Court is set aside.
12. We find that the ex-gratia payment due to the respondent was
credited to his account only in 2004 whereas the whole calculation is as
on 30.03.2001. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the amounts
could not have been credited prior to 2004 in view of the interim orders
granted by the High Court, permitting the respondent to continue i n
service. We do not want the parties to venture for another r ound of
litigation on this count.
13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and a lso
taking note of the fact that the respondent has derived the entire service
benefits for the period he has worked based on the interim orders , we
direct the appellant – Bank to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupee
One Lakh) by way of compensation in full and final settlement of all the
claims towards belated payment. We make it clear that there shall be
no recovery of the benefits already paid to the respondent duri ng the
period he was in service.
Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.