PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. TEJ PARTAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned.

(2.) The petitioners submit that the High Court while holding that the respondents, who retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 of the first petitioner Bank, were entitled to Leave Fare (Travel) Concession, purported to follow its earlier decision dated 10.1.2007 in Civil Writ Petition 6406/2006 -- Baldev Singh v. Punjab & Sind Bank. It is submitted that the decision in Baldev Singh had nothing to do with Leave Fare Concession which is the subject-matter of this petition. It is pointed out that Baldev Singh related to adding five years to qualifying service for purposes of pension. It is contended that the High Court has not discussed the entitlement to Leave Fare Concession, and therefore the matter requires remand.

(3.) A careful reading of the impugned judgment shows that the High Court referred to Baldev Singh only for the purpose of following its ratio that in addition to benefits of VRS, the employees of the Bank who have opted for voluntary retirement are also entitled to and eligible for all other retirement benefits to which an employee may be entitled to under the rules and regulations of the Bank and bipartite settlements/awards.