Back
2017 Supreme(Cal) 852
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.
Sri. Sribrata Deb - Petitioner
Vs.
Bank of India - Respondent
W.P. No. 26817(W) of 2016
Decided On : 16-06-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pratik Majumder
For the Respondents: Mr. Sourav Chakraborty
The principle of res judicata applies to writ proceedings, and the relief claimed in the earlier judgment, though not specifically declined, shall be deemed to have been refused, barring a party from bringing a fresh proceeding for the same relief.
Headnote:
Leave Encashment - Compulsory Retirement - Order 2 Rule 2, Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking interest on leave encashment benefit, citing the principle of res judicata and deeming the relief to have been refused in an earlier judgment. The court emphasized the application of Section 11 to writ proceedings and highlighted the difference between Order 2 Rule 2 and Section 11 in their respective fields of operation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Bank of India officer, was compulsorily retired and filed a writ petition seeking leave encashment benefits. After the bank released the benefits, the petitioner filed a second writ petition seeking interest on the amount disbursed.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, citing the principle of res judicata and deeming the relief to have been refused in an earlier judgment.
Issues: The permissibility of seeking interest on delayed payment of leave encashment in the present writ petition, and the application of Order 2 Rule 2 and Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of res judicata applies to writ proceedings, and the relief claimed in the earlier judgment, though not specifically declined, shall be deemed to have been refused, barring a party from bringing a fresh proceeding for the same relief.
Final Decision: The writ petition seeking interest on leave encashment benefit was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.
Let the affidavit-in-reply filed in court today be kept with the record.
2. The short point involved in the present writ petition is more legal than factual. However, the essential facts may be summarised in a nutshell.
3. The petitioner was an officer of the Bank of India and he was compulsorily retired in the year 2014. Since the bank authorities did not release the leave encashment in his favour he filed a writ petition being WP 24983(W) of 2015. That writ petition was disposed of by a learned single judge on December 3, 2015 directing the bank to release the privileged leave encashment benefits to the petitioner to the extent he was entitled to in accordance with law within a certain period as mentioned in the order.
4. The bank filed an appeal against that order and a division bench of this court had by an order dated September 8, 2016 declined to admit the appeal as the issue whether leave encashment was payable to compulsorily retired employees had already been decided by the Supreme Court.
5. The bank authorities had admittedly released the privileged leave encashment in favour of the petitioner thereafter. Then comes the second round of litigation, i.e., the present writ petition where the petitioner has prayed for a Mandamus upon the bank authorities to disburse interest to the petitioner at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum on the privileged leave encashment benefit released by the bank.
6. This is a case where both the petitioner as well as the bank authorities addressed each other on the permissibility of leave encashment in respect of a compulsorily retired officer which was no longer the res integra as the issue had already been decided. It was particularly the bank which had raised various issues about the alteration in the service regulation, the circulars issued from to time by the Indian Bank Association, so on and so forth. I had given opportunity to the bank to file a report in the form of an affidavit where issues have been raised which were not relevant for the disposal of the writ petition in view of the settled position of law.
7. Reading the affidavit on behalf of the bank authorities one has to conclude that the main issues were missed by them. The very major issue so far as this writ petition is concerned appears to have been missed by the bank, i.e., the permissibility of asking for interest on delayed payment of leave encashment in this writ petition. It may be mentioned that in the earlier writ petition also the petitioner had prayed for interest at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum on the leave encashment. As a matter of fact, prayer (b) in the earlier writ petition is almost identical with the principal prayer (a) in the present writ petition, with the only difference that in the present one the petitioner is praying interest on the amount disbursed by the bank and in the earlier petition he had mentioned the number of days for which he claimed himself to be so entitled.
8. Thus the question to be decided is on the effect of not granting the interest in the earlier writ petition. Mr. Majumder tried to impress upon the court that all said and done that the learned single judge while disposing of the writ petition did not refuse interest in so many words. He has referred to the provisions contained in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code which says that a suit, or for that matter an original petition, should contain the whole claim and if the petitioner had failed to sue in respect of any part of the claim he shall be debarred from suing the respondent on the part so relinquished by him. According to Mr. Majumder that is the reason why he had to pray for interest.
9. Had the reverse been the position the court perhaps would not have had any difficulty in granting interest on the amount disbursed as leave encashment. After all it is a settled position of law that the principle analogous to Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to a writ pro
