Punjab & Sind
Bank & Ors.Thr.Chirm.& Ors Vs. Tej Partap Singh & Ors. [2008] INSC
2121 (8 December 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] No......of
2008 [CC 13831/2008] Punjab & Sind Bank through its Chairman & Ors. ...
Petitioners Tej Partap Singh & Ors. ... Respondents
O R D E R
1.
Delay
condoned.
2.
The
petitioners submit that the High Court while holding that the respondents, who
retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 of the first petitioner Bank,
were entitled to Leave Fare (Travel) Concession, purported to follow its
earlier decision dated 10.1.2007 in Civil Writ It is submitted that the
decision in Baldev Singh had nothing to do with Leave Fare Concession which is
the subject-matter of this petition. It is pointed out that Baldev Singh
related to adding five years to qualifying service for purposes of pension. It
is contended that the 2 High Court has not discussed the entitlement to Leave
Fare Concession, and therefore the matter requires remand.
3.
A
careful reading of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court referred to
Baldev Singh only for the purpose of following its ratio that in addition to
benefits of VRS, the employees of the Bank who have opted for voluntary
retirement are also entitled to and eligible for all other retirement benefits
to which an employee may be entitled to under the rules and regulations of the
Bank and bipartite settlements/awards.
4.
Though
the judgment does not specifically refer to the Punjab & Sind Bank Officers
Service Regulations, 1982 (`Regulations' for short), it is clear that the High
Court was referring to the contention of the employees that under Regulation
44(1) of the said regulations, they were eligible for Leave Travel Concession
and that could not be denied to them by relying upon the Circular dated
28.11.2000.
5.
We
agree that the judgment could have been a little more detailed. But the lack of
detailed reasons cannot by itself be a ground for remand, when it is discernible
from 3 the judgment that the High Court was referring to Regulation 44(1) of
the Regulations, read with Clause (4) of the Bank's VRS Scheme, 2000, to hold
that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Leave Travel Concession.
Therefore, this is not
a fit case for exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution to
grant leave. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
_________________J.
(R. V. Raveendran)
_________________J.
New
Delhi;
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
