Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2469 OF 2010
STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
KANWAL NAIN SINGH Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
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the application once made cannot be withdrawn and the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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MAHABIR SINGH
Date: 2018.04.10
17:20:19 IST
Reason:
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
2
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 Court challenging the voluntary retirement. As
per an interim order 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.
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
3
Management Grade Scale-I with effect from 01.05.2003.
Since the clarification was allowed on 21.01.2004,
as per the order 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 direction/clarification praying for enhanced
ex-gratia, on the basis of length of service actually
rendered and scale of pay in the promoted 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
4
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 High
5
Court, with great respect, was not correct in its
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 declared that he was bound by the
provision in the Scheme that the application 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 liberty granted
at the time of withdrawal to pursue any remedy, if
available and in accordance with law, a fresh writ
petition was filed, which ultimately 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
6
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 in service.
We do not want the parties to venture for another
round of litigation on this count.
13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case and also 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 during the period he
was in service.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ]
.......................J.
[ NAVIN SINHA ]
New Delhi;
April 03, 2018.
7
ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.5 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 2469/2010
STATE BANK OF PATIALA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
KANWAL NAIN SINGH Respondent(s)
Date : 03-04-2018 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR
Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv.
Ms. Mansi Kapur, Adv.
Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable
Judgment.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed reportable Judgment is placed on the file)