the appellant faced termination from the Bank, she filed the suit seeking damages for such termination alleging that it was illegal. Along with the plaint a prayer was made, as prayer (d), that her home loan and vehicle loan be allowed to be repaid at the rate applicable to the employees of the Bank. It is submitted by Sri Philip T.Varghese, the learned counsel for the appellant that at the time when the suit was filed, the rate of interest applicable to the appellant was the rate applicable to the employees, since the Bank has not revised it. This submission is vehemently refuted by Sri Gopinath Menon, the learned counsel for the respondents, that such benefit was given to the appellant solely on account of her status as an employee of the Bank and that when she ceased to be in service, the benefits will have to be revised. He further says that the Bank had already taken steps to revise the rate of interest but that it was on account of some administrative and procedural exigencies, that the revised rates were not immediately applied. He asserts that the Bank is entitled to revise the rate because the appellant herself concedes that she has been terminated from service. In fact, Sri Gopinath Menon avouches that the rates were revised by the Bank before the filing of the suit or immediately thereafter but that no recovery has been effected until now in deference to the pending litigation.
