Case: STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. KANWAL NAIN SINGH

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 theon 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 Clause 9 of the Scheme contained a specific provision that the application once made cannot be withdrawn and the same will be treated as irrevocable.      2.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 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. Thechallenged the same before this Court. By a Judgment dated 17.12.2002 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.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. Theis a subsidiary of the State Bank of India. On 30.01.2003, the Bank filed an application for clarification as to whether thebeing a subsidiary, the benefit of the Judgment would be available to theas 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 Management Gradewith 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, anpayment 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 enhancedon the basis of length of service actually rendered and scale of pay in the promoted post. According to the learned counsel appearing for theia was, in fact, calculated on the basis of the total length of service, till the date of actual retirement under the 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.

Reasoning:
10. Having extensively heard Mr. Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel appearing for theand 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 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.That apart, all that the respondent prayed for in the interlocutory application, which was withdrawn with liberty, was to seek enhancedIt 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 Judgmentin LPA No. 114 of 2008 passed by the High Court is set aside.We find that thepayment due to the respondent was credited to his account only in 2004 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.