NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5428 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8001 of 2007)

The J & K Bank Ltd. & Ors.                              …Appellants

VERSUS

Smt. Neelam Rani                           …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In our view, this appeal can be disposed of on a very short

point.   

3. This  appeal  is  directed  against  a  Judgment  and  decree

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at

Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No. 1111 of 2005 by

which,  the  second  appeal  filed  by  the  appellant  was

dismissed  and  the  decree  passed  in  favour  of  the

respondent was affirmed.   

4. A perusal  of  the Judgment  of  the  High Court  passed in

second  appeal  would  show  that  the  question  that  was

1

1

raised before the High Court was negated by it by passing

the order in the following manner:-

“I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below.   There  are  concurrent  findings  and  the points now been raised had been dealt  with by the Courts below.”             

5. The question that was needed to be decided by the High

Court was whether the courts below could have interfered with

the  order  of  voluntary  retirement  passed  by  the  appellant

against the respondent in accordance with Rule 265-A of the J

& K Bank Officers Service Rules, 1987 which does not require

the holding of enquiry as a pre-requisite and whether a suit for

specific  performance  of  a  contract  for  enforcing  personal

contract of service against the appellant for alleged breach of

rules framed by the appellant as a non statutory company was

maintainable in law.  

6. In  our  view,  the  High  Court  was  not  justified  in

dismissing the second appeal in the manner it had dismissed.

While considering the second appeal, the High Court ought to

have considered the questions raised before it,  as indicated

herein  earlier,  and  thereafter  by  formulating  or  framing  the

aforesaid  questions  as  substantial  questions  of  law  by  a

speaking and reasoned order.   

2

2

7. Such being the position, we set aside the judgment of

the High Court and remit the case back to it for disposal of the

second appeal  in  accordance with  law after  formulating the

substantial questions of law and after passing a reasoned and

a speaking order in accordance with law.   

8. The impugned judgment is, therefore, set aside and this

appeal  is  allowed to  the extent  indicated above.  The High

Court  is  requested  to  dispose  of  the  second  appeal  in

accordance  with  law  in  the  light  of  the  observations  made

hereinabove within a period of  six months from the date of

supply of a copy of this order.  There will be no order as to

costs.     

…………………………J. [TARUN CHATTERJEE]

…………………………J. [AFTAB ALAM]

NEW DELHI

September 02, 2008.

3

3