INDER RAJ MALHOTRA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R .P.146/2014 in LPA 47/2007 1. This is an application for review of the decision dated 01.02.2007 by which the LPA. No.47/2007 was dismissed. The applicant had preferred a Special Leave Petition against the said decision, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.01.2014 by the Supreme Court recording as under:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted that while dismissing the LPA, the Hon 'ble Division Bench did not consider the operative portion, i.e., the last paragraph of the judgment dated 18.09.1987 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition filed by K.I. Shephard and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. Our attention is drawn to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sudershan Kumar Dhall vs. Canara Bank, which was subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4885/92, disposed of vide order dated 29.03.1995. In addition, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to order dated 04.02.2000 in Writ Petition No.2634/1989 titled Jagdish Mittal Maini vs. Canara Bank & Another passed by a Single Bench of this Court.

(3.) THE Petitioner who was under suspension was one of the employees mentioned in the schedule and, therefore, was not to continue and deemed to be appointed by the transferee bank under Clause 10. Similarly, situated employees who were not taken in service, had filed writ petition before the Supreme Court titled K.I. Shephard and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 18.09.1987 reported in AIR 1988 SC 686. The operative portion of the said judgment reads: -