http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5503 of 2003

PETITIONER: Union Bank of India

RESPONDENT: Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2008

BENCH: G. P. Mathur & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 5 OF 2007 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5503 OF 2003

O R D E R

1.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2.      This application has been filed by the appellant \026 Bank  for correction of factual submission  No. 1 recorded at internal  page 4 of the judgment of this Court dated 12.01.2007.   3.      In the judgment dated 12.01.2007, this Court recorded  three submissions made by Shri Raju Ramachandran, Senior  Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant \026 bank.  The first  submission as recorded in the judgment was, \023pension  regulations do not apply to the respondent No. 1 as he is an  award staff\024.  This submission appears to have been  mistakenly mentioned in the judgment dated 12.01.2007 and  it needs to be suitably corrected to the extent that \023there was  no scheme/provision of voluntary retirement in the terms and  conditions of service applicable to the award staff to which  respondent No. 1 belonged. 4.      The rectification of the above said submission is essential  because this factual mistake has been recorded in the  judgment as a submission of the learned senior counsel  appearing on behalf of the appellant \026 bank due to oversight.   The applicant \026 bank in this application has categorically  submitted that the pension regulations are applicable to all  employees of the bank irrespective of whether they are officers  or award staff. 5.      Thus, in the factual situation as noticed above, the first  submission recorded in the judgment dated 12.01.2007 shall  stand rectified and corrected to the above extent which shall  form part of the main judgment.  We may make it clear that  this order of change/rectification of the factual mistake of first  submission noticed in the judgment will have no bearing or  effect on the final result of the appeal which was decided on  other issues and contentions on merits. 6.      Interlocutory Application stands, accordingly, allowed.