Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors.Thr.Chirm.& Ors vs Tej Partap Singh & Ors
- CitationAIRONLINE 2008 SC 145
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an employee opts for voluntary retirement under a scheme, the employee remains entitled to all other retirement benefits to which an employee may be entitled under the Bank's rules, regulations, and bipartite settlements or awards, except insofar as those benefits are expressly excluded by the terms of the voluntary retirement scheme itself. The employee's eligibility for such benefits is determined by reference to the substantive provisions of the Bank's service regulations (including provisions such as Regulation 44(1) relating to Leave Travel Concession) rather than by a circular or policy announcement that purports to restrict benefits available under the voluntary retirement scheme, unless the scheme itself contains language expressly limiting or excluding those benefits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Punjab & Sind Bank through its Chairman & Ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
Tej Partap Singh & Ors. ... Respondents
O R D E R
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
Petition 6406/2006 -- Baldev Singh Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank.
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)
New Delhi; _________________J. December 8, 2008. (D. K. Jain) 4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free