Writ jurisdiction denied in private bank employment dispute; resignation, termination and benefits held purely contractual under section 35B(1)(b).

SC dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the HC's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the dispute over whether the petitioner's resignation, once accepted, precluded a subsequent termination, and the consequential claims regarding early retirement benefits and stock options, arose purely from a contractual relationship with a private bank. No public law element was involved merely because approval under section 35B(1)(b) had been questioned. The petitioner was left to pursue appropriate contractual remedies before the competent forum.

---

---

The Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136, holding that the dispute concerned a purely private/contractual matter between the petitioner and a private bank. The sole controversy was "whether the resignation of the petitioner having earlier been accepted and thereafter her services been terminated, the latter could take place or not." The Court treated this as falling "within the realm of contractual relationship between the petitioner and the private bank," and therefore not warranting exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction in a special leave petition. It did not examine or adjudicate the merits of the competing claims regarding the legal effect of acceptance of resignation versus subsequent termination, and confined itself to stating that no interference with the impugned order was called for. The special leave petition and all pending applications were dismissed.

---