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the application once made cannot be withdrawn and the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)