1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 695 of 2004 THE PALI CENTRAL CO-OP.BANK LTD & ANR. V/S MISHRILAL & ORS. Mr. SANJAY KAPOOR for Mr. RK KAPOOR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. GOPAL MEGHWAL & Mr. MP PAREEK, for the respondent Date of Order : 28.8.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- The matter comes on the application of the respondent requesting that the present appeal may be decided as per the judgment of this Court dt. 9.7.2008 rendered in D.B.S.A.W. No. 694/2004 Pali Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Amarchand Goyal. Learned counsel for the appellant opposes the application on the ground that the case of the present respondent is different from that of Amarchand Goyal, and therefore, the present case need not be decided on account of the decision having been rendered in Amarchand Goyal's case in favour of the respondent. We have considered the submissions, and find that 2 at page-4 of the impugned judgment where the facts are narrated by the learned Single Judge, it has been noticed that in response to the employee's letter dt. 8.10.1996, by letter dt. 26.10.1996 the request of the employee for voluntary retirement was granted by imposing the condition that while his application for voluntary retirement is accepted, he shall not be entitled to the benefit of voluntary retirement unless the case of Shri Goyal pending in the Court is not decided in favour of Shri Goyal. Reference to this Goyal as clarified by the learned counsel that this is same Shri Amarchand Goyal. Thus, it is clear that even according to the appellant the benefit of voluntary retirement was not given to the present respondent on the ground of matter of Shri Goyal being pending, and shall not be given to him unless the matter of Shri Goyal is decided in favour of Shri Goyal. Admittedly the matter of Shri Goyal has been decided in favour of Shri Goyal. In that view of the matter, per force of letter of the appellant dated 26.10.1996, the present respondent is also entitled to the benefit. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the present matter is distinguishable. Consequently, the application filed by the applicant is allowed, and this appeal is also decided on 3 the lines, and on the reasonings as given in Amarchand Goyal's case. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/