STATE BANK OF PATIALA versus KANWAL NAIN SINGH

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 858 · Decided: 03-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
STATE BANK OF PATIALA
v.
KANWAL NAIN SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 2469 of 2010)
APRIL 03, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Service Law – Voluntary retirement scheme – Employee sought
withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement – Denial of
request and employee retired from service – Writ petition challenging
voluntary retirement – High Court allowed the employee to continue
in service – Said order set aside by this Court – Application for
clarification as to whether the appellant-Bank, being a subsidiary,
the benefit of the judgment would be available to the appellant-Bank
– Clarification application allowed – Review thereagainst also
dismissed – Subsequently, employee retired from service and ex-
gratia payment credited to his account – Application by employee
seeking enhanced ex-gratia payment – Withdrawal of the said
application with liberty to pursue alternative remedy – Thereafter,
employee filing writ petition seeking resurrecting of the judgment
whereby employee was retired from service – Dismissal by the Single
Judge, however, set aside by the Division Bench – On appeal, held:
High Court was not correct in its approach in reopening the case of
the employee – It is a Judgment in personam – For all intents and
purposes, employee is bound by that judgment for ever – Respondent
prayed to seek enhanced ex-gratia, which was withdrawn with liberty
– It appears that under the cover of the liberty granted to pursue
any alternative remedy, a fresh writ petition was filed, which
ultimately led to the impugned judgment – Thus, order passed by
the Division Bench set aside – Bank directed to pay an amount of
Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation in full and final settlement
of all the claims.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The respondent suffered a Judgment when this
Court allowed the appeal filed by the Bank and dismissed the
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 858
858
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
859
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 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’s case, in the matter of withdrawal of application for
voluntary retirement before the same is accepted. The
respondent’s 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. That apart, all
that the respondent prayed for in the 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 which is set aside. [Paras 10, 11][861-H; 862-A-D]
1.2 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 Bank submitted 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. The parties should not venture for another round of
litigation on this count. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case and that the respondent has derived the entire service
benefits for the period he has worked based on the interim orders,
the appellant-Bank is directed to pay an amount of Rupees One
Lakh by way of compensation in full and final settlement of all the
claims towards belated payment. There shall be no recovery of
the 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 141
referred to
Para 10
STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. KANWAL NAIN SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2469
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2008 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L. P. A. No. 114 of 2007 in Writ
Petition (C) No. 17426 of 2004.
Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Ms. Mansi Kapur, Ms.
Shubhra Kapur, Advs. for the A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.