As per case facts, the respondent applied for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) but tried to withdraw it the next day. The bank denied the withdrawal citing an irrevocable clause ... in the scheme, leading to the respondent's retirement. The respondent's writ petition was initially allowed by the High Court, but the Supreme Court later set it aside. Despite this, the respondent continued service under an interim order and was promoted. After the Supreme Court clarified its previous order, the respondent was retired, and ex-gratia payment was credited. The respondent's subsequent review petition was dismissed. Later, the respondent filed a new writ petition for enhanced ex-gratia, which the High Court's Division Bench allowed, prompting the bank's appeal. The question arose whether the High Court correctly reopened a case already decided by the Supreme Court, especially when the Supreme Court had previously confirmed the irrevocability of the VRS application and dismissed a review. Finally, the Supreme Court found the High Court's approach incorrect, reiterating that the respondent was bound by earlier Supreme Court judgments that deemed the VRS application irrevocable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, but also directed the appellant bank to pay compensation for the belated ex-gratia payment, clarifying no recovery of benefits already paid.