UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. SHIVPRAKASH P MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - Union Bank of India and others have challenged in this Appeal the Judgment and order dated 18.7.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Akshay H.Mehta,J.) in Special Civil Application No.9314 of 2001 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent - original petitioner and directed the present Appellant to reinstate the original petitioner on his original post with full wages and continuity of service on condition that the original petitioner shall repay the amount of Rs.13,53,351.73 ps. which was actually received by him under the V.R.S. Scheme at the rate of 9 % till the date of repayment. The original petitioner was directed to repay the said amount on or before 31.8.2002.

(2.) The present Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the Appellant before this Court on 5.8.2002 and it was straightway admitted by the Division Bench of this Court (J.N.Bhatt & J.R.Vora, JJ.) on 20.8.2002 and it was ordered to be heard with L.P.A. No.354/02. However, the said L.P.A. No.354/02, filed by another Bank i.e. Dena Bank, against its employee was segregated and dismissed by this Court on 17.8.2003 in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v/s O.P. SWARNAKAR & ORS. reported in 2003 (2) SCC 721, as in that case the respondent employee had not accepted the exgratia payment. In this Appeal the respondent original petitioner had already accepted the exgratia payment before approaching this Court, therefore, this Appeal is required to be heard and decided on merit in view of the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Swarnakar (Supra). The Appellants have also filed Civil Application no.5603 of 2003 in this Appeal wherein the same Division Bench issued Rule on 20.8.2002 and granted ad.interim relief of status-quo and accordingly the said relief has continued till today. In view of the ad.interim relief granted the respondent original petitioner is out of job till today. Under the circumstances, we are required to decide this Appeal on merits in accordance with law.

(3.) Learned Counsel Shri Patel for the Appellant, relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swarnakar's case (supra) vehemently submitted that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the respondent petitioner, is required to be quashed and set aside because in the instant case the respondent - original petitioner approached this Court after accepting the exgratia payment. He has mainly relied upon the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paras : 114 and 115 of Swarnakar's case (Supra), which we would like to reproduce, which are as under :