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  Clause 9 of the Scheme contained a specific provision that the application once made cannot be withdrawn and the same will be treated as irrevocable.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 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)