9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (3) TMI 834 - HC - Indian LawsRetirement under the voluntary retirement scheme 2000 - Whether application for retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme 2000 could be rejected by the appellant bank even after denying promotion - First Division Bench passed a order thereby rejecting the prayer of the respondent No. 1 for voluntary retirement - Held that - decision relied upon by the Referring Bench in support of Reference merely reiterates principle of judicial decorum of following the precedent of a co-ordinate Bench except by way of reference to a larger Bench but by taking aid of such decision a Court cannot overcome the principles of res judicata on an issue of fact or even an issue of mixed question of law and fact which is not only binding upon the parties but also upon the Court subsequently dealing with the concluded issue question formulated by the Referring Bench is not a pure question of law but basically an issue of fact already decided in the facts of the case by the First Division Bench Reference is competent (sic) and accordingly Reference return to the Referring Bench without deciding the issue framed for the reasons discussed above.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application of the respondent No. 1 for retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme 2000 could be rejected by the appellant bank even after denying promotion to the respondent No. 1 to the higher post? 2. The applicability of the doctrine of res judicata in the context of the case. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rejection of Voluntary Retirement Application: The primary issue revolves around whether the appellant bank could reject the respondent No. 1's application for voluntary retirement under the voluntary retirement scheme 2000, especially after denying him promotion to a higher post. The respondent No. 1 challenged the rejection of his voluntary retirement application by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge initially quashed the rejection order and directed the bank to reconsider the application. This decision was upheld by the First Division Bench, which observed that the respondent No. 1 had suffered stagnation due to a lack of promotion and that the bank had not demonstrated any special interest in retaining him for his computer expertise. 2. Applicability of Doctrine of Res Judicata: The subsequent legal proceedings involved the application of the doctrine of res judicata. The appellants did not appeal the First Division Bench's decision, making it binding. When the competent authority again rejected the voluntary retirement application, the respondent No. 1 filed a fresh writ petition. The learned single Judge set aside this second rejection, leading to another appeal by the appellants. The Referring Bench, noting the earlier observations, proposed a contrary view and referred the matter to a Larger Bench, citing judicial propriety and the need to follow precedents. However, the Larger Bench held that the reference was incompetent. The doctrine of res judicata prevents re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties. The reference to a Larger Bench was deemed inappropriate because the issue at hand was a mixed question of law and fact already settled by the First Division Bench. The principle of res judicata, as elucidated in various Supreme Court rulings, emphasizes the finality of judicial decisions to avoid harassment and ensure conclusiveness in litigation. The Larger Bench concluded that the Referring Bench should have adhered to the First Division Bench's findings, as the doctrine of res judicata barred reopening the concluded issue. Conclusion: The Larger Bench returned the reference to the Referring Bench without deciding the formulated issue, emphasizing the binding nature of the First Division Bench's decision under the doctrine of res judicata. The principle of judicial decorum and adherence to precedents was reiterated, but it could not override the res judicata doctrine on mixed questions of law and fact. Consequently, the reference was deemed incompetent, and no costs were ordered. Separate Judgments: Both Tapan Kumar Dutt, J., and Prasenjit Mandal, J., concurred with the judgment, agreeing with the conclusions reached.
|
