J & K Bank
Ltd.& Ors. Vs. Neelam Rani [2008] INSC 1484 (2 September 2008)
Judgment
NON REPORTABLE IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5428 OF
2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8001 of 2007) The J & K Bank Ltd. &
Ors. ...Appellants VERSUS Smt. Neelam Rani ...Respondent
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
In
our view, this appeal can be disposed of on a very short point.
3.
This
appeal is directed against a Judgment and decree passed by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 1111 of 2005 by
which, the second appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the decree
passed in favour of the respondent was affirmed.
4.
A
perusal of the Judgment of the High Court passed in second appeal would show
that the question that was 1 2 raised before the High Court was negated by it
by passing the order in the following manner:- "I have gone through the
judgments of the Courts below. There are concurrent findings and the points now
been raised had been dealt with by the Courts below."
5.
The
question that was needed to be decided by the High Court was whether the courts
below could have interfered with the order of voluntary retirement passed by
the appellant against the respondent in accordance with Rule 265-A of the J
& K Bank Officers Service Rules, 1987 which does not require the holding of
enquiry as a pre-requisite and whether a suit for specific performance of a
contract for enforcing personal contract of service against the appellant for
alleged breach of rules framed by the appellant as a non statutory company was
maintainable in law.
6.
In
our view, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the second appeal in
the manner it had dismissed.
While considering the
second appeal, the High Court ought to have considered the questions raised
before it, as indicated herein earlier, and thereafter by formulating or
framing the aforesaid questions as substantial questions of law by a speaking
and reasoned order.
7.
Such
being the position, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the
case back to it for disposal of the second appeal in accordance with law after
formulating the substantial questions of law and after passing a reasoned and a
speaking order in accordance with law.
8.
The
impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside and this appeal is allowed to the
extent indicated above. The High Court is requested to dispose of the second
appeal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made hereinabove
within a period of six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order.
There will be no order as to costs.
..............................J.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE]
..............................J.
[AFTAB ALAM]
NEW
DELHI
September
02, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
