Service Law – Voluntary retirement scheme – Employee sought withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement – Denial of 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 – Clarification application allowed – Review thereagainst also dismissed – Subsequently, employee retired from service and exgratia 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 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and purposes, employee is bound by that judgment for ever – Respondent prayed to seek enhanced ex-gratia, which was withdrawn with liberty – It appears that under the cover of the liberty granted to pursue any alternative remedy, a fresh writ petition was filed, which ultimately led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 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 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’s case, in the matter of withdrawal of application for 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 That apart, all that the respondent prayed for in the application, which was withdrawn with liberty, was to seek enhanced ex-gratia.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]
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 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 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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.