Gujarat High Court
Karsanbhai Jivabhai Chamar vs Executive Engineer on 30 March, 2026
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026
undefined
Reserved On :03/02/2026
Pronounced On : 30/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 456 of 2016
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2048/1999
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
KARSANBHAI JIVABHAI CHAMAR & ORS.
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS ADITI S RAOL(8128)
for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3
MR DG CHAUHAN(218) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RONAK D CHAUHAN(7709) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) Page 1 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
1.Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Ms. Aditi Raol for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms Shruti Dhruve for respondent no.3.
2.By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, the original appellant who has expired during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs are brought on record, has challenged the order dated 03.03.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.2048 of 1999 by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition preferred by the appellant is dismissed.
3.Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1997, the appellant late Karsanbhai Jivabhai Chamar was working as Patalkuva (tube-well) Page 2 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined operator with the respondent Gujarat Water Resources Department and had put in more than 20 years of service.
4. It is the case of the appellant that he was orally informed by the respondent authorities that the respondent Board would be ready and willing to sell Patalkuvas (tube wells) to those tube-well operators, who were willing to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and therefore, the appellant made an application dated 09.10.1997 opting for voluntary retirement and requested that the sale price of the tube-well may be deducted from the voluntary retirement entitlements that may accrue to him.
5.It is the case of the appellant that when the appellant came to know that there was no such scheme of selling tube-wells and it was only a ploy designed by the respondent authorities Page 3 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined to entice the employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the appellant made applications dated 12.12.1997 and 09.07.1998 to the respondent authorities to withdraw his application dated 09.10.1997 opting for Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
6.It is the case of the appellant that though he had submitted application for withdrawal of his option for voluntary retirement, the respondent authorities by communication dated 2.12.1998 informed the appellant that his application for voluntary retirement has been accepted.
7.Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.2048 of 1999 challenging the order dated 2.12.1998. This Court by judgment and order dated 08.04.2009 quashed and set aside the order dated 2.12.1998. Page 4 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
8.Being aggrieved, the respondent authorities preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.18 of 2010 challenging the judgment and order dated 08.04.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 09.07.2015 set aside the judgment dated 08.04.2009 and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in light of the observations made therein.
9.Learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2016 dismissed the writ petition.
10. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
11. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for the appellants at the outset submitted Page 5 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined that it is not in dispute that the application for voluntary retirement made by the appellant-original petitioner was withdrawn immediately and thereafter the respondent authorities accepted the request for voluntary retirement by granting certain benefits and accepting such benefits with objection by the petitioner, however, same would not in any way disentitle the petitioner from canvassing that his application for voluntary retirement though withdrawn, was wrongly accepted.
12. It was submitted that learned Single Judge has committed an error in rejecting the petition after remand made by the Division Bench by setting aside the judgment and order dated 08.04.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the petition.
13. It was submitted that the petitioner Page 6 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined submitted the application for voluntary retirement on 09.10.1997 and immediately before acceptance of application, withdrew the same on 12.12.1997. It was pointed out that thereafter the respondents accepted the voluntary retirement application by communication dated 02.12.1998 i.e. almost after one year.
14. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge and placed reliance upon the following decisions:
1)Balram Gupta v. Union of India reported in 1987 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 228.
2)Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India Ltd. and another reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 437.Page 7 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
3)Bank of India and others v. O.P. Swarnakar and others reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 721.
4)Kuldip Gandotra v. Union of India and others reported in (2006) IILLJ 51 DEL.
15. Referring to the decision in case of Kuldip Gandotra(supra), it was submitted that Hon'ble Delhi High Court has considered the similar issue as the petitioner in the said case accepted the amount payable under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and therefore, principle of estoppel was invoked. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court after considering the issue involved, referred to various provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 by distinguishing the facts from the facts in case of Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India Ltd. and another(supra) and other similar matters and held that the Page 8 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined petitioner can withdraw the voluntary resignation and the second issue as to whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner having received the payment under Voluntary Retirement Scheme is estopped and barred from challenging the acceptance of voluntary retirement is concerned, it was held by the Delhi High Court that principle of estoppel by conduct is not applicable in the facts of the said case as the employer was aware about the withdrawal of the voluntary retirement and the employee had received payment under protest and it was not a case of unconditional acceptance.
16. It was therefore, submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta that only factor which has weighed with the learned Single Judge to dismiss the petition is acceptance of amount by the petitioner with objection Page 9 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined under protest so as to take a contrary view than what was taken earlier by the learned Single Judge while allowing the petition by judgment and order dated 08.04.2009 which was set aside only with a view to give opportunity of hearing to the respondent.
17. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan for the respondent submitted that once the petitioner has accepted the retirement benefits, he cannot be permitted to claim that the voluntary retirement was withdrawn and he should be continued in service.
18. It was reiterated by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan that the petition has been rightly dismissed considering the suppression of material facts by the petitioner. It was pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan that the petitioner has nowhere stated in the Page 10 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined petition that he had given the application on 12.12.1997 for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement as the same was never received by the respondent authority and when there is no reference in the petition, it would amount to a concocted document and an afterthought on part of the petitioner.
19. It was submitted that the petition was filed in March, 1999 whereas the petitioner had already received an amount of Rs.5,31,259/- which was also not disclosed by the petitioner in the petition. It was pointed out that even thereafter the respondent authorities had given further amount of Rs.49,943/- towards difference of gratuity, leave, salary, etc. Thus the petitioner had received a total amount of Rs.5,81,202/- though with objection under protest,but the same is already deposited in Page 11 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined his account and utilized for his personal use.
20. It was therefore, submitted by learned advocate Mr. Chauhan that learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition relying upon the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it is held that before acceptance of application of Voluntary retirement by the authority if the application is withdrawn by an employer, such application cannot be accepted by the employer. However, in case of O.P. Swarnakar and others(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if an employee has accepted part of the benefit under the Voluntary retirement scheme, then it is not open for him to say that his application for voluntary retirement has been wrongly accepted.
Page 12 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
21. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Chauhan has relied upon the following decisions:
1)Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel and others reported in (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 193.
2)HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and another v. Heavy Engineering Corpn. Ltd. and others reported in (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 708.
3)A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others reported in (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 163.
4)Sukhdeo Pandey v. Union of India and another reported in (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 455.Page 13 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
5)Cyril Joy Gonsalves v. Assistant General Manager (Judgment of this Court dated 27.09.2024 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.458 of 2016).
22. Learned advocate Mr. Chauhan therefore, submitted that while exercising the limited jurisdiction under Letters Patent, no interference may be made in the impugned judgment and order as the learned Single Judge has referred to and relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex court for dismissing the petitions.
23. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, the facts of the case are not in dispute except the allegation of suppression made by the respondents against the appellant - original petitioner. Page 14 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
24. The appellant - original petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 09.10.1997 and before acceptance of the said application, the petitioner withdrew the same on 12.12.1997. It also appears that by communication dated 09.07.1998, the petitioner again informed the respondent that he had made an application for voluntary retirement scheme on condition of sale of tube-well. However, such condition is not acceptable and hence, he has withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement by letter dated 09.10.1997. According to the respondent, the said letter was never received by the respondents. The respondents however by letter dated 02.12.1998 accepted the application for voluntary retirement much after the petitioner withdrew the same.
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India (supra) has held that Page 15 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined notice of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time before the retirement becomes effective notwithstanding any rule providing for obtaining of specific approval of the concerned authority as condition precedent to withdrawal of notice for voluntary retirement.
26. In case of Bank of India and others v. O.P. Swarnakar and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that once an application for voluntary retirement/resignation has been withdrawn before it is actually accepted, thereafter it is not open for the authority to pass any order accepting the same either for voluntary retirement or resignation thereafter. Therefore, in facts of the case, the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement has been accepted much after the petitioner withdrew the application for Page 16 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined voluntary retirement and he was voluntarily retired subsequent to the withdrawal of the application by the order dated 02.12.1998 and therefore, order dated 02.12.1998 would not survive. However, learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition only on the ground that the petitioner accepted the amount disbursed by the respondents while accepting the application for voluntary retirement.
27. Reliance was placed by the learned Single Judge in case of Bank of India and others v. O.P. Swarnakar and others(supra) to come to the conclusion that if the employee has accepted part of the benefit under the scheme it is not open for him to say that his application for voluntary retirement has been wrongly accepted.
28. However, on perusal of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Balram Page 17 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined Gupta(supra), wherein it is held that an employee is entitled to be put back to his job with all consequential benefits being treated as in the job as employee can withdraw his notice for voluntary retirement as it stands on par with letter of resignation and therefore, the employer cannot withhold the same.
29. In case of Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India Ltd. and another(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no condition in the relevant scheme for voluntary retirement that once an option to voluntary retire is exercised by an employee and before the same is accepted by the employer, the employee would not be entitled to withdraw from the voluntary retirement. In facts of the said case, it was held that the jural relationship between the employee and employer did not come to an end Page 18 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined on the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement and the relationship continued till the date of actual release of payment of salary etc. and when the appellant before the Apex Court sent two letters withdrawing his voluntary retirement before his actual date of release from service, he had a locus poenitentiae to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement before the relationship of employer and employee came to an end. The appellant was entitled to rejoin his duty and he should be paid all his salaries and other benefits during the period he was out from service. It was held that however in case of having retired by the time of the decision, the appellant was directed to be paid full salary and allowances for the entire period he was out of service till the date of his retirement and thereafter, he would be entitled to get all retiral benefits counting the period as if he was in service. Page 19 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
30. In case of Bank of India and others v. O.P. Swarnakar and others(supra), the issue before the Apex Court regarding the terms of the voluntary retirement scheme which provided that the employee concerned who opts for voluntary retirement pursuant to or in furtherance of a scheme floated by the nationalised banks and the State Bank of India would be precluded from withdrawing the said offer was considered. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering the said issue held that those who accepted the ex gratia payment or any other benefit under the scheme, could not have resiled therefrom as such scheme is contractual in nature and the contractual right derived by the employees concerned, therefore could not be waived. It was held that the employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be Page 20 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined permitted to resile from their earlier stand.
31. In case of Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel and others(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that unilateral deposit of a part of benefit under the Scheme into the bank account, and that too after withdrawal of the application, would construe as to have accepted the part of the benefit under the scheme, when the same was neither withdrawn nor utilized by the employee concerned. The fact before the Hon'ble Apex Court was that the applicants sought review/clarification/modification of the judgment in case of Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar (supra) in respect of directions 1,2 and 3 contained in para no.130 thereof as the applicant contended that they had withdrawn their request for voluntary retirement before the acceptance thereof and that mere deposit of any benefit under VRS by Page 21 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined the employer bank in their account could not be construed to be acceptance of the benefit by the applicant inasmuch as they had not operated their bank account thereafter and had not withdrawn the benefit amount or any part thereof in terms of direction 1 in para. 130 of the decision in case of Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar (supra). In the facts of the said case as the applicant had neither withdrawn nor utilized the amount deposited in the bank account after withdrawal of the application, review application was allowed and the applicants were directed to be reinstated in their post with continuity of service and back wages and all consequential benefits as they are entitled under the law.
32. However, in the facts of the present case, the appellant has utilized the amount disbursed to him while accepting his application for voluntary retirement and Page 22 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined therefore, the appellant had accepted the benefit under the scheme by withdrawal and utilisation of the amount thereof, would not be permitted to approbate and reprobate.
33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society and another v. Heavy Engineering Corpn. Ltd. and others (supra) held that the effect of voluntary retirement scheme is cessation of jural relationship between the employer and the employee and once an employee opts to retire voluntarily, in terms of the contract he cannot raise a claim for a higher salary unless by reason of a statute, he becomes entitled thereto. It was further held that he may also become entitled thereto even if a policy in that behalf is formulated by the Company. In facts of the said case, an employee opted for voluntary retirement scheme resulting into a concluded contract Page 23 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined and such voluntary retirement scheme speaks of package which one either takes it or rejects it. Therefore, those employees who opted for voluntary retirement, make a planning for the future and at the time of giving option, they know where they stand. At that point of time they did not anticipate that they would get the benefit of revision in the scales of pay as they prepared themselves to contract out of the jural relationship by resorting to "golden handshake", they are bound by there own act. The parties are bound by the terms of contract of voluntary retirement scheme which has resulted in cessation of jural relationship between the employer and once an employee opts to retire voluntarily in terms of contract, he cannot raise a claim for higher salary unless by a reason of statute he becomes entitled thereto or if a policy in that behalf is formulated by the company. Page 24 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
34. In case of A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex-gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted and the amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service, it is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company and that is why in business world it is known as 'Golden Handshake'. It was held that after an amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights, with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. Page 25 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
35. In case of Sukhdeo Pandey v. Union of India and another (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in facts of the said case held that after the appellant was reverted from the cadre of Postman to his substantive post of EDBPM, he has not joined duty and has not worked and no interim relief was granted by any Court including the Apex Court in his favour. In such circumstances, it was obligatory on him to report for duty and when he failed to do so, the appellant has not worked and he will not be paid salary for the period for which he has not worked.
36. In view of above decision even if it is presumed the application for voluntary retirement rendered by original petitioner could not have been accepted as same was withdrawn, no financial burden can be levied upon the respondents as amount of Page 26 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined Rs.5,81,202/- is already paid and utilized by him and therefore, he cannot be treated as on duty for the period for which he has never worked.
37. Reliance was placed on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Cyril Joy Gonsalves v. Assistant General Manager(supra) wherein in similar facts it was held that once the employee has accepted ex gratia amount and utilized the same he cannot resile from the claim and they cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate.
38. Considering such law which has been canvased before us, two propositions emerge:
1)An employee can withdraw application for voluntary retirement before the same is accepted and Page 27 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
2)Employee cannot approbate or reprobate once he has accepted ex gratia amount paid to him and utilized the same.
39. The only difference in facts of the case is that the petitioner accepted the amount with objection under protest which is not in dispute. Thus question arises whether even after accepting the amount by the petitioner under protest, whether he could have agitated that his voluntary retirement is required to be set at knot in view of the withdrawal of the application made by him in 09.10.1997.
40. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Kuldip Gandotra (supra) while considering such issue held that principle of estoppel by conduct would not be applicable. The respondent was conscious and aware that the petitioner has withdrawn his application for Page 28 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined voluntary retirement and the decision was taken almost after one year on 02.12.1998 to accept his application for voluntary retirement by making payment to the petitioner which was accepted by the petitioner under protest and which was not an unconditional acceptance.
41. In such circumstances, doctrine of estoppel by conduct would not be applicable and should not be applied.
42. However, in case of Bank of India and others v. O.P. Swarnakar and others(supra) and in case of Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel and others(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has in no uncertain terms held that employee who has accepted the benefits under the scheme by withdrawal and utilisation thereof, they are not permitted to approbate or reprobate. It is not in Page 29 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined dispute that the petitioner has accepted ex- gratia payment and utilized the same. Therefore, he cannot resile from the voluntary retirement scheme. The petitioner ought to have refused to accept the amount in view of withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement.
43. Therefore, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has rightly held that case of the appellant is squarely covered by decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel and others (supra) and decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Kuldip Gandotra(supra) would not come to rescue of the petitioner. Thus we are in complete agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
Page 30 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/456/2016 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 30/03/2026 undefined
44. Hence the Letters Patent Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) (L. S. PIRZADA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR Page 31 of 31 Uploaded by RAGHUNATH R NAIR(HC00196) on Mon Mar 30 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 30 22:18:34 IST 2026