Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1528 (RAJ)

Suresh Chand Jain v. Central Bank of India

2003-11-11

O.P.BISHNOI, RAJESH BALIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Suresh Chandra Jain has filed this special appeal 1 against the judgment dated 19.3.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2526/2001. 2. He is aggrieved by the denial of full emoluments of the period during which he had remained out of employment. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Single Judge having found that the Bank could not have refused to accept the withdrawal application and force voluntary retirement of the petitioner vide order dated 28.6.2001 has held the acceptance of option unilaterally and cessation of employment to be invalid, ye the full emoluments for the period during which he was kept wrongfully to out of employment have been denied to him for no reasons. The petitioner has approached this Court at earliest possible on 3rd July, 2001. There was no reason for denying the emoluments of the period during which he had been kept forcibly and illegally out of the employment. 3. We find that the learned Single Judge has not given any tenable reason for denying 50% of back wages. A distinction has been made with those who have continued in service by the interim order passed by this Court that he shall be governed by the interim order and if he is not allowed to continue in service by interim order of the Court the incumbent shall be allowed 50% back wages only. 4. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid reasoning obviously results in making difference without distinction. If in a like matter, persons falling in sac e class in spite of coming at the earliest, one does not get the benefit of interim order as was available to others, it ought not to result in different relief. Interim relief in same case is not granted with a view that one party may be given full redressal at end, if he is successful but in case he losses, other side may not be restored to status quo ante. Interim relief in same case is not granted with a view that one party may be given full redressal at end, if he is successful but in case he losses, other side may not be restored to status quo ante. But by difference in passing interim order by different benches in identical cases, when party concerned has no say in the matter of discretion, exercisable by the Court were to result in different reliefs to one who is not so lucky as the others, without there being any special reason for such differential treatment in relief, will )e a travesty of justice. In the present case neither the learned Single Judge has given any such reason, nor the learned counsel for respondent has made us any wiser about any special circumstances existing in the case of petitioner-appellant to place him at a less advantageous position than others solely on the basis of difference in interim relief granted by the court at initial stage. This case amply demonstrates that ordinarily in not keeping the parity in orders passed in like cases, may result in such anamolous situation. 5. The petitioner ought not to have been denied the full relief. It is apparent that in some of the cases, the interim relief has been granted by the 10 Court by allowing the incumbent to continue in service whereas the petitioner has not been granted the same benefit, notwithstanding the petitioner has also approached the Court at the earliest. In our opinion, merely because of the difference in proceedings on the interim stage, the petitioner should not suffer and he should not be put at a disadvantageous position than the other petitioners who were sailing in the same boat. 6. We may also notice that Special appeal No. 244/2002 filed by the State against the same judgment has been dismissed by this Court following the decision of Supreme Court in Bank of India & Ors. v. O.P. Swarnkar etc. and other, appeals AIR 2003 SC 858 : 2003 (1) WLC (SC) Civil 444 . 7. In view thereof, the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed and as a result of the success of the writ petition, the order dated 28.6.2001, retiring the petitioner voluntary without acting on his withdrawal application, the petitioner must be deemed to be in service throughout and entitled to the full emoluments as others. 7. In view thereof, the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed and as a result of the success of the writ petition, the order dated 28.6.2001, retiring the petitioner voluntary without acting on his withdrawal application, the petitioner must be deemed to be in service throughout and entitled to the full emoluments as others. He has been denied of said emoluments for no fault of his. 8. We may notice that though the petitioner has not accepted any benefit from the employer voluntarily, however, he has been given some retiral benefits under the orders of the Court pending writ petition. Accepting such retiral benefits under the orders of the Court cannot be termed as voluntarily accepting some benefits under the V.R. Scheme. However, these emoluments may be adjusted against the amounts that become payable to the petitioner as a result of this order, if not already adjusted in full against 50% back wages that become payable to him under the order of learned Single Judge. 9. In the result, this appeal by the appellant is allowed, as indicatedAppeal Allowed as above. *******