IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] No……of 2008 [CC 13831/2008]

Punjab & Sind Bank through its Chairman & Ors. … Petitioners Vs. Tej Partap Singh & Ors. … Respondents

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

2. The  petitioners  submit  that  the  High  Court  while holding that the respondents, who retired under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 of the first petitioner Bank, were entitled to Leave Fare (Travel) Concession, purported to follow its earlier decision dated 10.1.2007 in Civil Writ Petition 6406/2006 -- Baldev Singh Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank. It  is  submitted  that  the  decision  in  Baldev  Singh had nothing  to  do  with  Leave  Fare  Concession  which  is  the subject-matter  of  this  petition.  It  is  pointed  out  that Baldev  Singh related  to  adding  five  years  to  qualifying service for purposes of pension. It is contended that the

1

High Court has not discussed the entitlement to Leave Fare Concession, and therefore the matter requires remand.

3. A careful reading of the impugned judgment shows that the  High  Court  referred  to  Baldev  Singh only  for  the purpose of following its ratio that in addition to benefits of  VRS,  the  employees  of  the  Bank  who  have  opted  for voluntary retirement are also entitled to and eligible for all other retirement benefits to which an employee may be entitled to under the rules and regulations of the Bank and bipartite settlements/awards.

4. Though the judgment does not specifically refer to the Punjab  &  Sind  Bank  Officers  Service  Regulations,  1982 (‘Regulations’ for short), it is clear that the High Court was referring to the contention of the employees that under Regulation  44(1)  of  the  said  regulations,  they  were eligible for Leave Travel Concession and that could not be denied  to  them  by  relying  upon  the  Circular  dated 28.11.2000.

5. We agree that the judgment could have been a little more detailed. But the lack of detailed reasons cannot by itself be a ground for remand, when it is discernible from

2

the  judgment  that  the  High  Court  was  referring  to Regulation 44(1) of the Regulations, read with Clause (4) of  the  Bank’s  VRS  Scheme,  2000,  to  hold  that  the respondents  are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  Leave  Travel Concession.

Therefore,  this  is  not  a  fit  case  for  exercise  of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution to grant leave. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

_________________J. (R. V. Raveendran)

New Delhi; _________________J. December 8, 2008. (D. K. Jain)  

3

4