STATE BANK OF PATIALAversusKANWAL NAIN SINGH

858                      [2018]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    3 S.C.R. 858              [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A                        STATE BANK OF PATIALA
                                       v.
                           KANWAL NAIN SINGH
                        (Civil Appeal No. 2469 of 2010)
B                               APRIL 03, 2018
      [KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
                      NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
             Service Law – Voluntary retirement scheme – Employee sought
      withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement – Denial of
C
      request and employee retired from service – Writ petition challenging
      voluntary retirement – High Court allowed the employee to continue
      in service – Said order set aside by this Court – Application for
      clarification as to whether the appellant-Bank, being a subsidiary,
      the benefit of the judgment would be available to the appellant-Bank
D     – Clarification application allowed – Review thereagainst also
      dismissed – Subsequently, employee retired from service and ex-
      gratia payment credited to his account – Application by employee
      seeking enhanced ex-gratia payment – Withdrawal of the said
      application with liberty to pursue alternative remedy – Thereafter,
      employee filing writ petition seeking resurrecting of the judgment
E
      whereby employee was retired from service – Dismissal by the Single
      Judge, however, set aside by the Division Bench – On appeal, held:
      High Court was not correct in its approach in reopening the case of
      the employee – It is a Judgment in personam – For all intents and
      purposes, employee is bound by that judgment for ever – Respondent
F     prayed to seek enhanced ex-gratia, which was withdrawn with liberty
      – It appears that under the cover of the liberty granted to pursue
      any alternative remedy, a fresh writ petition was filed, which
      ultimately led to the impugned judgment – Thus, order passed by
      the Division Bench set aside – Bank directed to pay an amount of
      Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation in full and final settlement
G
      of all the claims.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
           HELD: 1.1 The respondent suffered a Judgment when this
      Court allowed the appeal filed by the Bank and dismissed the
H
                                      858
     STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. KANWAL NAIN SINGH                         859


application filed by the respondent, as per the Judgment reported       A
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’s case, in the matter of withdrawal of application for
                                                                        B
voluntary retirement before the same is accepted. The
respondent’s 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 application, which was            C
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 which is set aside. [Paras 10, 11][861-H; 862-A-D]
                                                                        D
       1.2 The ex-gratia payment due to the respondent was
credited to his account only in 2004 whereas the whole calculation
is as on 30.03.2001. The Bank submitted 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. The parties should not venture for another round of         E
litigation on this count. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case and that the respondent has derived the entire service
benefits for the period he has worked based on the interim orders,
the appellant-Bank is directed to pay an amount of Rupees One
Lakh by way of compensation in full and final settlement of all the     F
claims towards belated payment. There shall be no recovery of
the benefits already paid to the respondent during the period he
was in service. [Para 12, 13][862-E-G]
      Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. Ramesh Kumar
      (2007) 8 SCC 141 – referred to.                                   G
                       Case Law Reference
      (2007) 8 SCC 141         referred to             Para 10


                                                                        H
860             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2469
      of 2010.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2008 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L. P. A. No. 114 of 2007 in Writ
      Petition (C) No. 17426 of 2004.
B            Sanjay Kapur, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Ms. Mansi Kapur, Ms.
      Shubhra Kapur, Advs. for the Appellants.
             Gagan Gupta, Adv. for the Respondent.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             KURIAN, J. 1. The appellants are before this Court, aggrieved
C     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.
D
      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
E     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
F     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
G
      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
H     on 21.01.2004.
     STATE BANK OF PATIALA v. KANWAL NAIN SINGH                                   861
                     [KURIAN, J.]

        5. In the meanwhile, the respondent was continuing in service on          A
the basis of an interim order passed by the High Court. He was promoted
to the Junior 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.
                                                                                  B
       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.
                                                                                  C
      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           D
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 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.                     E

       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             F
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             G
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
                                                                                  H
862                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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
D     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 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
E     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
F     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.
G

      Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeal allowed.




H