C.M. Nos.4834-C of 2007, 3679 & 3680 OF 2008 &

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1631 OF 2007& :{ 1 }:

XOBJECTION NO.9-C OF 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 22, 2010

State Bank of India and others

.....Appellants

VERSUS

Ram Singh

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate,

for the X-Objector/respondent.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The appellant-Bank has filed this appeal against the

judgment of the first Appellate Court, which has reversed the

judgment passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the suit filed by the

respondent employee. The appellant-Bank with vast resources at its

command would not hesitate to contest any claim whether justified

or not. Appellant-Bank would plead that following substantial

question of law would emerge in this case:-

C.M. Nos.4834-C of 2007, 3679 & 3680 OF 2008 &

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1631 OF 2007& :{ 2 }:

XOBJECTION NO.9-C OF 2008

“(i) Whether the action of the Appellant-Bank was valid as

per the standing order?

(ii)Whether the action of the Appellant-Bank in voluntarily

retiring the respondent-plaintiff was valid?

(iii)Whether the jurisdiction of the learned Civil Court was

barred under law?

(iv)Whether the relief can be given beyond pleadings and

in the absence of the challenge to the standing

order/regulations?

None of these, however, were pressed into service at the

time of issuing notice of motion. At that time, reliance was placed

only on the judgment in the case of R.Jeevaratnam Vs. State of

Madras, AIR 1966 SC 951 to submit that even if it is assumed that

one part of the impugned order qua the retrospective retirement of

the respondent was bad, it was not apparent from the other part of

the order that it could not be independently faulted. While issuing

notice of motion, this Court, stayed the operation of the impugned

judgment and decree. Thus, the grounds regarding validity of the

action as per the standing order or the validity of the order voluntarily

retiring the respondent-plaintiff and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court

being barred or that the relief beyond the pleadings etc. were never

pressed into service. Even now at the time of arguments, the only

ground pressed before me is about the validity of the voluntary

retirement order in terms of the standing order on the basis of

Bipartite Settlements.

First the facts in brief to get the hang of the issue may be

C.M. Nos.4834-C of 2007, 3679 & 3680 OF 2008 &

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1631 OF 2007& :{ 3 }:

XOBJECTION NO.9-C OF 2008

noticed.

The respondent-plaintiff had joined the services of the

appellant on 10.11.1987 as Messenger and on completion of

probation had become permanent and regular employee of the

appellant Bank. He could not attend to his duties w.e.f 1.8.1999 as

he was advised rest on account of ailment. After recovery from

illness, he submitted his joining report alongwith his medical

certificates but was not allowed to join duties by the appellant Bank.

The appellant would plead that the respondent-plaintiff was directed

to join duties through order dated 28.12.1999 within 30 days and was

also cautioned that in the event of failure to do so, he would be

deemed to have voluntarily retired from service after expiry of the

notice period. Another letter was initiated on 10.2.2000, through

which the respondent-plaintiff was informed that since he had failed

to join duties by 28.1.2000, he stood voluntarily retired from service

w.e.f. 29.1.2000 in view of the deeming provisions in this