The court underscored the limited grounds for review under CPC while asserting that non-compliance with precedent does not constitute sufficient reason for appeal.

ORDER Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the judgment dated 7^th July 2025 passed in W.A.No.1822 of 2018 whereby the Writ Appeal was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager in the Union Bank of India vide Ext.P1 order dated 19.09.2011. As per the terms of the appointment, the respondent was required to execute a service indemnity bond undertaking to serve the bank for a minimum period of three years or else a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs shall be required to be paid to the bank in case he resigned from the service of the bank before completing the stipulated minimum service period of three years. Accordingly, the respondent executed Ext.P2 indemnity bond. While working as Assistant Manager with Union Bank of India, the respondent got selected in the Corporation Bank as Probationary Manager. The respondent remitted Rs.2.5 lakh and was relieved to join the Corporation Bank. Subsequently, he filed Ext.P5 representation before the Regional Manager, Union Bank of India requesting him to refund the amount on the ground that the bank has not suffered any loss or incurred any liability on account of his relieving. The respondent submitted that the bond shall not be enforced in case the employee is joining another public sector undertaking. In view of this exemption, he is liable to get the amount refunded.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant bank submitted that while dismissing the Writ Appeal, this Court has not taken into consideration the decision passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank v Prashant B Namawan 2025 KLT Online 1929(SC) which was specifically pointed out and relied by the appellants. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court has already declared the law affirming the practice of taking employment bond and forfeiture of amount while leaving the service of the bank prematurely. The decision of Vijaya Bank (supra) covers the issue involved in the impugned Writ Appeal and non- consideration of the decision by this Court is clearly an error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, this Review Petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the facts of the Vijaya Bank (supra) would not be applicable to the present case in as much as the applicant therein was an employee of Vijaya Bank (Government of India undertaking) who had resigned and thereafter joined the private bank, namely, IDBI. The learned counsel submitted that if an employee joins a private bank, then only he is required to refund the amount as per the bond.

4.1 The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that in the present case, the respondent was working in the Union Bank of India and resigned to join the Corporation Bank. Both banks being Government of India undertaking, Vijaya Bank (supra) would not be applicable. This Court had come to the conclusion that the respondent would be entitled for refund of the amount which was deposited as per the bond based on the Guidelines for Administrative Ministries/Departments and Public Sector Enterprises. Therefore, no error has crept in so as to review the order passed in the Writ Appeal. The Review Petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, Vijaya Bank (Supra) would not be applicable, since in that case, the employee had resigned from Vijaya Bank and joined IDBI which is a private bank. In the present case, the respondent joined the Corporation Bank after leaving Union Bank of India. Subsequently, after the merg