STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Bank has filed this appeal against the judgment of the first Appellate Court, which has reversed the judgment passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the suit filed by the respondent employee. The appellant-Bank with vast resources at its command would not hesitate to contest any claim whether justified or not. Appellant-Bank would plead that following substantial question of law would emerge in this case:

(2.) None of these, however, were pressed into service at the time of issuing notice of motion. At that time, reliance was placed only on the judgment in the case of R. Jeevaratnam v. State of Madras, 1966 AIR(SC) 951 to submit that even if it is assumed that one part of the impugned order qua the retrospective retirement of the respondent was bad, it was not apparent from the other part of the order that it could not be independently faulted. While issuing notice of motion, this Court, stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and decree. Thus, the grounds regarding validity of the action as per the standing order or the validity of the order voluntarily retiring the respondent-plaintiff and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court being barred or that the relief beyond the pleadings etc. were never pressed into service. Even now at the time of arguments, the only ground pressed before me is about the validity of the voluntary retirement order in terms of the standing order on the basis of Bipartite Settlements.

(3.) First the facts in brief to get the hang of the issue may be noticed.