PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ORS. versus MOHINDER PAL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 28-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA, S.B. SINHA, A.K. MATHUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

PUNJAB AND SINO BANK AND ORS. 
V. 
MOHINDER PAL SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 28, 2005 
[H.K. SEMA, S.B. SINHA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Voluntary Retirement Scheme-Punjab and Sind Bank-Employee 
withdrawing his option to avail benefit of the Scheme before its acceptance by 
A 
B 
c 
the Bank-Bank depositing in employee's account small amount towards leave 
encashment-Held, waiver of a right implies the knowledge of the existing 
right-At no point time the employee was informed that the amount was 
deposited in his account as part of benefit under the Scheme-Employee cannot D 
be said to have waived his right to continue in se'rvice-Besides leave 
.. 
encashment benefit is one of the additional benefits-The main benefit of the 
Scheme indisputably was the ex-gratia payment which was not paid to 
employee-An employee even if contained in service would have been entitled 
to the additional benefits which are in the nature of terminal benefits-The E 
Bank is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution-Fair 
and better dealings from a 'State' vis-a-vis its own employees is expected-
Jt is not for an employee, who did not accept that his offer had validly been 
accepted in terms of the Scheme to approach the Bank for payment of his 
dues-It was for the Bank to make such an offer-Employee is entitled to be 
reinstated in services with all consequential benefits and continuity in service- F 
Waiver-Constitution of India-Article I 2. 
Bank of India and Ors. v. O.P. Swarnakar and Ors., (2003] 2 SCC 721, 
relied on. 
Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr. v. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa and Anr., G 
(2004] 4 sec 484, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 7 In Civil Appeal No. 
8476 of 2002. 
989 
H 
, 
990 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R .. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana. 
High Court in W.P. No. 1458 of 2001. 
Jagat Arora, Rajiv Nanda, Rajat Arora and Ms. Ritu Arora for the 
Appellants. 
B 
Ms. Meenakshi Arora and Shailendra Bhardwaj for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
C 
Application of a decision of this Court in Bank of India and Ors. v. 
D 
0. P. Swarnakar and Ors., [2003] 2 SCC 721 falls for consideration in this 
application. 
Before, however, we advert to the said question, we may notice the 
admitted facts. 
Shri Amarjit Singh Sahni, the Applicant herein at all material times was 
working in the Punjab and Sind Bank (for short "th~ Bank") as a Cashier-
cum-Clerk at the Zonal Office Haryana. The Bank adopted a scheme known 
as "the Punjab and Sind Bank Employee's Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 
2000" (for short "the Scheme") which was to remain in operation from 
E 1.12.2000 to 31.12.2000. In terms of the Scheme, those who sought for 
voluntary .retirement were entitled to accept ex gratia payments as specified 
therein as also the other benefits which are as under: 
"Amount of ex gratia 
F 
An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme will be 
entitled to the ex gratia amount mentioned below in para (a) or (b), 
whichever is less: 
G 
H 
(a) 60 days' salary (pay plus stagnation increments plus special pay 
plus dearness relief) for each completed year of service; 
or 
(b) salary for the number of months of service left; Other benefits 
An employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme will be 
eligible for the following benefits in addition to the ex gratia amount 
mentioned in para 6 above of this Scheme: 
~. 
• 
'· 
f. 
PUNJAB AND SINO BANK v. MOHINDER PAL SINGH 
991 
(i) Gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or gratuity A 
payable under the Service Rules, as the case may be, as per existing 
rules. 
(ii)(a) Pension (including commuted value of pension) as per PNB 
(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995. 
or 
(b) Bank's contribution towards PF as per existing rules. 
(iii) Leave encashment as per existing rules." 
B 
The Applicant opted to avail the benefit of the said Scheme wherefor C 
he filed an application on 15.12.2000. He, however, withdrew the said offer 
on or about 22.12.2000. It is not the case of the Bank that pior thereto the 
application filed by the application was accepted. 
It is furthermore not in dispute that on 29.01.2001, the Applicant filed 
a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court being C.W.P. No. 1458 D 
of 200 I. The matter came up before the High Court on 31.01.200 I whereupon 
notices were issued and an interim order was pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.