Mahaveer Khariwal Vs Indian Bank & Anr.

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CONT.CAS(C) 841/2022 MAHAVEER KHARIWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. H. K. Naik, Mr. Ajit Singh, Mr. Rajnish, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

INDIAN BANK & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Sanwal, Advocate.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA O R D E R % 20.03.2026

¶8

The present petition alleges wilful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment / order 02.02.2009 passed in LPA No.246 of 2007. The operative directions therein are as under:-

¶9

“11. For the above reasons, it is not possible to sustain the order of learned single Judge. The impugned order is hereby set aside and appeal is allowed. Letter dated 21^st January, 2004 is quashed. The bank is directed to release retiral dues of the appellant in accordance with the Pension Regulations, 1995 with simple interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing of writ petition within a period of 4 weeks from today.”

¶10

It transpires that the said order was appealed before the Supreme Court, which eventually came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.01.2021. The operative directions therein are as under:-

¶11

“12. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the employer that the acceptance or non-acceptance of the voluntary retirement application is required to be taken before the expiry of the period specified in the notice, i.e., in the present case three months and the same was taken on the last date of the three months' period and date of receipt of the decision/communication is not material, it is true that in the present case the decision was taken before the expiry of the period specified in the notice, i.e., on or before three months (last day of the third month),

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:59:52

¶14

however, as observed hereinabove, the rejection of the application for voluntary retirement itself is found to be illegal and bad in law. Therefore, the aforesaid shall not affect the ultimate conclusion reached by the Division Bench of the High Court. As observed hereinabove, communication dated 20.04.2004 rejecting the voluntary retirement application was bad in law and contrary to Regulation 29. Therefore, the employee shall be entitled to all retiral benefits on the basis of his voluntary retirement. Once, it is held that he is voluntary retired as per his application dated 21.01.2004 and the rejection of the application of voluntary retirement is held to be bad in law, all other subsequent proceedings of departmental enquiry will be null and void and shall be non est, as after the voluntary retirement, there shall not be an employeremployee relationship.

¶15

13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

¶16

It transpires that after the judgment dated 22.01.2021 was passed by the Supreme Court, the payment of the petitioner’s retiral dues was made by the respondent. However, interest as contemplated in Paragraph 11 of the judgment / order dated 02.02.2009 was only confined till March, 2010.

¶17

The ostensible basis thereof was that vide order dated 22.03.2010, the Supreme Court directed as under:-

¶18

“Leave granted. Hearing expedited. Printing dispensed with. The appeal shall be heard on the SLP paper books. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.

¶19

Ad interim order dated 29th September, 2009 is made absolute till the disposal of the appeal.

¶20

Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank states that as and when the respondent applies for release of his retiral benefits, the same shall be computed and paid expeditiously.”

¶21

It is case of the respondent that the interest has been confined only up to March, 2010, since the petitioner did not exercise the option of approaching the bank for release of the retiral benefits.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bank’s offer to disburse his retiral benefits is not in consonance with the directions

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:59:52

¶25

contained in the judgment / order dated 02.02.2009 passed by this Court in LPA No. 246 of 2007. The bank sought to treat the petitioner as having been compulsorily retired and sought to work out the dues of the petitioner accordingly. In this regard, reference is made to the communication dated 25.06.2010 addressed by the bank to the petitioner. The same reads as under:-

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:59:52

¶28

There is prima facie merit in the contention of the petitioner that the bank’s offer to the petitioner in 2010 for payment of dues, was premised on the basis that the petitioner was compulsorily retired. This was at variance with the directions contained in the judgment / order dated 02.02.2009 in LPA No. 246 of 2007.

¶29

Also, there is merit in the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the aforesaid judgment dated 02.02.2009, it is incumbent on the respondent to pay interest to the petitioner till the date on which the retiral benefits were actually released to the petitioner.

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:59:52

¶32

As such, it is evident that confining the entitlement of interest only up to March, 2010 was not in line with the directions contained in the judgment dated 02.02.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 246 of 2007 and judgment dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2760/2010.

¶33

In the circumstances, the respondent is directed to re-work the amount of interest payable to the petitioner and calculate the same on the basis that the petitioner is entitled to interest till the date of the actual release of the retiral benefits.

¶34

Let the same be worked out and be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today.

¶35

Let the calculation thereof be also placed on record and also supplied to the petitioner.

¶36

The respondent shall also pay the petitioner any amount due under the head ‘Leave Encashment’, as per the applicable Rules.

¶37

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶38

List for reporting compliance on 08.07.2026.

¶39

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶40

MARCH 20, 2026/r

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/03/2026 at 11:59:52

Mahaveer Khariwal v. Indian Bank & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahaveer Khariwal v. Indian Bank & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D S Kundu Vs Devinder Singh Nijjar and Anr.

Agrasen Parents Association Vs Sh R D Goyal and Ors.

Neeraj Vs Pradeep Singh Kharola Chairman & Managing Director Air India Ltd.

Gulsheen Kaur Vs Ms. Shruti Sharma & Ors. & Ors.

Balraj Singh Dabas Vs Kuldeep Kumar Sharma

Darzi India LLP Vs Kafil Ahmed

Rajiv Chadha Vs Raghuvinder Singh

Ravinder Parshad Jain Vs Dr Yudhbir Singh Rawat and Ors.

Namo Rathor Vs Sanjeev Khirwar & Ors.

Ca Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs Smt. Anandi Ramalingam & Ors.

Mala Sahni Seth & Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority

United News of India Vs Union of India through Land and Development Officer Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs & Anr.

Hcl Technologies Limited Vs Karan Cab Service Pvt. Limited

Dr Prannoy Roy & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.