STATE BANK OF PATIALA versus KANWAL NAIN SINGH on 3 April 2018

858

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 3 S.C.R.

ASTATE BANK OF PATIALA

v.

KANWAL NAIN SINGH

(Civil Appeal No. 2469 of 2010)

B

APRIL 03, 2018

[KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR ANDNAVIN SINHA, JJ.]

Service Law – Voluntary retirement scheme – Employee soughtwithdrawal of application for voluntary retirement – Denial ofCrequest and employee retired from service – Writ petition challengingvoluntary retirement – High Court allowed the employee to continuein service – Said order set aside by this Court – Application forclarification as to whether the appellant-Bank, being a subsidiary,the benefit of the judgment would be available to the appellant-BankD– Clarification application allowed – Review thereagainst alsodismissed – Subsequently, employee retired from service and ex-gratia payment credited to his account – Application by employeeseeking enhanced ex-gratia payment – Withdrawal of the saidapplication with liberty to pursue alternative remedy – Thereafter,employee filing writ petition seeking resurrecting of the judgmentEwhereby employee was retired from service – Dismissal by the SingleJudge, however, set aside by the Division Bench – On appeal, held:High Court was not correct in its approach in reopening the case ofthe employee – It is a Judgment in personam – For all intents andpurposes, employee is bound by that judgment for ever – RespondentFprayed to seek enhanced ex-gratia, which was withdrawn with liberty– It appears that under the cover of the liberty granted to pursueany alternative remedy, a fresh writ petition was filed, whichultimately led to the impugned judgment – Thus, order passed bythe Division Bench set aside – Bank directed to pay an amount ofRs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation in full and final settlementGof all the claims.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The respondent suffered a Judgment when thisCourt allowed the appeal filed by the Bank and dismissed theH

application filed by the respondent, as per the Judgment reportedin (2003) 2 SCC 721 and in (2004) 2 SCC 193. It is a Judgment inpersonam. The High Court, with great respect, was not correctin its approach in reopening the case of the respondent on thebasis of subsequent judgment of this Court in Food Corporationof India’s case, in the matter of withdrawal of application forvoluntary retirement before the same is accepted. Therespondent’s fate was sealed when this Court declared that hewas bound by the provision in the Scheme that the applicationonce made was irrevocable. For all intents and purposes, therespondent is bound by that judgment for ever. That apart, allthat the respondent prayed for in the application, which waswithdrawn with liberty, was to seek enhanced ex-gratia. It appearsthat under the cover of the liberty granted at the time of withdrawalto pursue any remedy, if available and in accordance with law, afresh writ petition was filed, which ultimately led to the impugnedJudgment which is set aside. [Paras 10, 11][861-H; 862-A-D]

1.2 The ex-gratia payment due to the respondent wascredited to his account only in 2004 whereas the whole calculationis as on 30.03.2001. The Bank submitted that the amounts couldnot have been credited prior to 2004 in view of the interim ordersgranted by the High Court, permitting the respondent to continuein service. The parties should not venture for another round oflitigation on this count. In the peculiar facts and circumstances ofthe case and that the respondent has derived the entire servicebenefits for the period he has worked based on the interim orders,the appellant-Bank is directed to pay an amount of Rupees OneLakh by way of compensation in full and final settlement of all theclaims towards belated payment. There shall be no recovery ofthe benefits already paid to the respondent during the period he was in service. [Para 12, 13][862-E-G]

Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Ramesh Kumar(2007) 8 SCC 141 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

(2007) 8 SCC 141referred toPara 10

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2469of 2010.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2008 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L. P. A. No. 114 of 2007 in WritPetition (C) No. 17426 of 2004.

BSanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Ms. Mansi Kapur, Ms.Shubhra Kapur, Advs. for the Appellants.

Gagan Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. 1. The appellants are before this Court, aggrievedCby the Judgment dated 04.10.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjaband Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 114 of 2007 in Civil Writ PetitionNo. 17426 of 2004. The case has a chequered history. The respondentjoined service in the appellant-Bank on 29.02.1977. The Bank publisheda 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.DClause 9 of the Scheme contained a specific provision that the applicationonce made cannot be withdrawn and the same will be treated asirrevocable.

2. On the last date of the operation of the Scheme i.e. on01.03.2001, the respondent submitted his application seeking voluntaryEretirement. On the next day, i.e. on 02.03.2001, he sought to withdrawhis application for voluntary retirement. His request was denied as perthe provisions of Clause 9 of the Scheme and he was retired.

3. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Courtchallenging the voluntary retirement. As per an interim order datedF30.03.2001, the respondent was allowed to continue in service and by acommon Judgment dated 03.04.2002, the writ petition was allowed. Theappellant-Bank challenged the same before this Court. By a Judgmentdated 17.12.2002 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 854-855 of 2002 and otherconnected matters, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721, the Judgment of theHigh Court was set aside by distinguishing the Scheme that operated inGState 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 whetherthe appellant-Bank, being a subsidiary, the benefit of the Judgment wouldbe available to the appellant-Bank as well. That application was allowedHon 21.01.2004.

5. In the meanwhile, the respondent was continuing in service onthe basis of an interim order passed by the High Court. He was promotedto the Junior Management Grade Scale-I with effect from 01.05.2003.Since the clarification was allowed on 21.01.2004, as per the orderreported in (2004) 2 SCC 193, allowing the appeal filed by the appellantalso, 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 creditedin the account of the respondent on various dates from 31.03.2004 upto14.05.2004. According to the respondent, neither the same was requestedby him/acceptable to him nor was it accepted.

7. The respondent attempted a review of the Judgment dated21.01.2004 before this Court. The Review Petition was dismissed on27.04.2004.

8. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for direction/clarification praying for enhanced ex-gratia, on the basis of length ofservice actually rendered and scale of pay in the promoted post.According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Bank, theex-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. Thatapplication was withdrawn without prejudice to the liberty to pursue anyalternative remedy, if any, available in accordance with law.

9. The respondent quite ingeniously, it appears, thereafter filed afresh writ petition before the High Court, virtually seeking to resurrectthe Judgment which he suffered at the hands of this Court, against whicheven the review at the instance of the respondent was dismissed. Thatwrit petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. However, theDivision Bench, in LPA No. 114 of 2007 in Civil Writ Petition No. 17426of 2004, leading to the impugned Judgment, allowed the same and thus,the instant appeal.

10. Having extensively heard Mr. Sanjay Kapur, learned counselappearing for the appellant-Bank and Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned counselappearing for the respondent, we find it difficult to appreciate the standtaken by the High Court. The respondent has suffered a Judgmentwhen this Court allowed the appeal filed by the Bank and dismissed theapplication 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 AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AHigh Court, with great respect, was not correct in its approach inreopening the case of the respondent on the basis of subsequent Judgmentof this Court in Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar,reported in (2007) 8 SCC 141 in the matter of withdrawal of applicationfor voluntary retirement before the same is accepted. As far as therespondent is concerned, his fate was sealed when this Court declaredBthat he was bound by the provision in the Scheme that the applicationonce made was irrevocable. For all intents and purposes, the respondentis bound by that Judgment for ever.

11. That apart, all that the respondent prayed for in the interlocutoryapplication, which was withdrawn with liberty, was to seek enhancedCex-gratia. It appears that under the cover of the liberty granted at thetime of withdrawal to pursue any remedy, if available and in accordancewith law, a fresh writ petition was filed, which ultimately led to theimpugned Judgment. In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal.The impugned Judgment dated 04.10.2008 in LPA No. 114 of 2008 passedDby the High Court is set aside.

12. We find that the ex-gratia payment due to the respondent wascredited to his account only in 2004 whereas the whole calculation is ason 30.03.2001. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the amountscould not have been credited prior to 2004 in view of the interim ordersEgranted by the High Court, permitting the respondent to continue inservice. We do not want the parties to venture for another round oflitigation on this count.

13. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and alsotaking note of the fact that the respondent has derived the entire serviceFbenefits for the period he has worked based on the interim orders, wedirect the appellant – Bank to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (RupeeOne Lakh) by way of compensation in full and final settlement of all theclaims towards belated payment. We make it clear that there shall beno recovery of the benefits already paid to the respondent during theperiod he was in service.G

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

H