Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1197 (MAD)

K. Panneerselvam v. Indian Bank and Others

2002-10-04

P.K.MISRA

body2002
Judgment :- The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 3.10.2001 and for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accept his request dated 18.9.2001 for going on voluntary retirement without prejudice to the contentions raised by the petitioner in W.P.No.19915 of 2001. 2. The petitioner joined under the respondent Bank in the year 1974. The respondent bank introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 9.11.2000 giving option to the employees, who had completed 15 years of service and were above 40 years, to seek for voluntary retirement. Accordingly the petitioner applied for retirement under the Scheme on 27.11.2000. However, the bank has rejected such request by order dated 11.7.2001. The said order has been impugned by the petitioner in W.P.No.19915 of 2001 and the writ petition has been admitted and is pending. 3. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner filed fresh application on 18.9.2001 requesting the respondents to allow him to retire under the voluntary retirement scheme under the Pension Regulation, 1995 without prejudice to the contentions raised in WP.No.19915/2001. The aforesaid request of the petitioner was rejected by the bank on 3.10.2001 on the ground that such conditional request is not acceptable. The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petition numbered as WPMP.No.29348/2001 in pending WP.No.19915/2001 to permit the petitioner to go on normal voluntary retirement scheme under the Pension Regulations without prejudice to his contentions but, the said application was rejected on the ground that such offer had been rejected by the bank on 3.10.2001 and the said order had not been challenged. Thereafter the petitioner has been transferred to Mumbai and W.P.No.16540 of 2002 against such order of transfer has been filed, wherein an interim order has been passed. The present writ petition is filed against the subsequent order dated 3.10.2001 rejecting the application of the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement without prejudice to the contentions raised in W.P.No.19915 of 2001. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the bank refuting the contentions raised in the writ petition and it has been indicated that since the offer was a conditional one, the bank had rejected the application. 5. The order passed by the bank is to the following effect :- “ . . . 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the bank refuting the contentions raised in the writ petition and it has been indicated that since the offer was a conditional one, the bank had rejected the application. 5. The order passed by the bank is to the following effect :- “ . . . Anent the above, we wish to state that, as your application for Voluntary Retirement under Indian Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations 1995, is a conditional request, the same has been declined. . . .” 6. The only condition referred to in the impugned order obviously relates to the condition that such voluntary retirement was without prejudice to the earlier writ petition of the petitioner regarding voluntary retirement. 7. Voluntary Retirement Scheme under which the petitioner earlier applied was introduced on 9.11.2000. There is no dispute that offer for voluntary retirement under the scheme, which was rejected earlier, is the subject matter of the pending writ petition and it is unnecessary to deal with the contentions relating to the aforesaid writ petition. So far as the retirement under the Pension Regulation is concerned, such application has been rejected solely on the ground that the application is a conditional one. It is not indicated that the bank requires very much the services of the petitioner, and therefore, is not in a position to accept the request of retirement. The only condition referred to is to the effect that such retirement is without prejudice to the contentions raised in WP.No.19915 of 2001. If ultimately the W.P.No.19915 of 2001 would be allowed, the petitioner would be entitled to more liberal benefits envisaged under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 9.11.2000. On the other hand if such a writ petition is dismissed, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefits available under the said scheme and the petitioner would be confined to the benefits available under the normal pension regulations which is obviously less beneficial to the petitioner. Thus, it is not understood as to how the offer of the petitioner to go on retirement under the pension regulations without prejudice to his contentions raised in the earlier writ petition is prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Narration of the events indicate that the petitioner is no longer willing to serve under the bank. Thus, it is not understood as to how the offer of the petitioner to go on retirement under the pension regulations without prejudice to his contentions raised in the earlier writ petition is prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Narration of the events indicate that the petitioner is no longer willing to serve under the bank. In such circumstances, it is not understood as to why the bank wants to retain an unwilling employee who had offered for voluntary retirement. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that similar application filed in WP.No.19915 of 2001 having been rejected, the present writ petition is not maintainable. In fact a perusal of the order in the Miscellaneous Petition itself makes it clear that the only ground for rejection of such petition is to the effect that the order of the bank dated 3.10.2001 had not been challenged in the said writ petition. Law is well settled that any order passed in an Interlocutory Application does not operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding as no right is finally determined by such interlocutory order. In this context, the decision reported in A.I.R. 1960 SC 941 (SATHYADHYAN GHOSAL AND OTHERS v. SMT. DEORJAIN DEBI AND ANOTHER) may be relevant. 9. The petitioner has also pointed out that some other employees under the bank have been relieved by the bank to go on normal retirement without prejudice to their contentions raised by such employees in other writ petitions filed against the rejection of the order of the Indian Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 9.11.2000. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to accept the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement dated 18.9.2001 under the Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995. However, it is made clear that this order is without prejudice to the contentions raised by the parties pending in W.P.No.19915 of 2001. There will be no order as to costs. WPMP.No.28267 of 2002 is closed.