53 of 2003 arising out of Civil Appeal No.
However, the bank accepted the request of the respondent on 6.1.2001 after the period of the Scheme was expired and on the same date the respondent had been relieved of his post.
1.11.2000 to 30.11.2000.
It is further argued that the respondent had applied for VRS on 17.11.2000, which was operative w.e.f.
It is argued that the Review Petition is number maintainable as the applicant had failed to show that there was an error apparent on record or that there was discovery of some new or important matter which, after the exercise of due diligence, was number within the knowledge or companyld number be produced by him at the time of the hearing of the special leave petition.
The ground taken therein is that respondent No.1, Virender Kumar Goel, has accepted the benefits under the VRS and, therefore, the appeal filed by him against the judgment and order of Uttaranchal High Court ought to have been dismissed, instead of allowed, as companytained in direction No.3.
Review Petition was also dismissed on 3.12.2003.
The appeals arising from the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in relation to ten writ petitions which were filed by the employees for a direction upon the Bank that the benefits under the Scheme be paid to them are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for companysideration thereof afresh on merits and in accordance with law.
A.NOS.1 2 AND 3 OF 2003 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8488, 8490 and 8467 OF 2002 IN C.A. 8467 8499 OF 2002 Punjab Sind Bank Ors.
The applicant withdrew his application on 20.12.2000, before the same was accepted by the bank.
3553 OF 2002 AND A.NO.14 OF 2003 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3556 OF 2002 IN C.A. 3552 3560/2002 Punjab National Bank Ors.
896 of 2002 has been filed by the Punjab National Bank.
Respondent SEMA,J. Parties are heard.
A.No.1 This I.A is filed by respondent Balbir Singh Chadha for clarification and modification of the judgment dated 17.12.2002.
Appellants Versus Balbir Singh Chandpuri Ors.
Review Petition No.
Respondents A.NO.15 OF 2003 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Respondents Applicants A. NOS.1 22 OF 2003 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
The employees companycerned having accepted a part of the benefit companyld number be permitted to approbate and reprobate number can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand.
The respondent herein had filed companynter to the application.
Thereafter, on 27.11.2000 the respondent had submitted an application for withdrawal of his application dated 17.11.2000 during the warranty of the Scheme.
In this case, the applicant applied for VRS on 28.11.2000.
Appellants Versus Mohinder Pal Singh Ors.
Emphasis supplied Finally, in paragraph 130 of the judgment this Court issued the following directions The appeals preferred by the nationalised banks arising from the High Courts are dismissed except the cases where the employees companycerned have accepted a part of the benefit under the Scheme However, in respect of such of the employees who despite acceptance of a part of the retirement benefit under the Scheme had companytinued under the orders of the High Court and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, this order shall number apply.
In all these applications, the applicants sought to review clarify modify the judgment and order of this Court rendered on 17.12.2002 in batches of Civil Appeals.
Emphasis supplied The appeals filed by the State Bank of India are allowed.
7314 7335 OF 2002 State Bank of Patiala Appellant Versus Varinder Kumar Sharma Ors.
