Supreme Court of India
Bank Of India And Ors. vs Pale Ram Dhania on 12 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: (2004)IIILLJ226SC, (2004)9SCC36, AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 1503, 2004 AIR SCW 7470, 2005 LAB. I. C. 1637, 2005 (8) SERVLR 863, 2004 (3) LABLJ 226, 2005 (104) FACLR 409, 2005 (3) SCT 809.1, 2005 LAB LR 97, 2005 (5) SLT 631, 2004 (4) LABLN 5, 2004 (9) SCC 36, 2005 (1) CURLR 490, (2005) 3 SCT 809, AIRONLINE 2004 SC 92, (2005) 104 FAC LR 409, (2004) 3 LAB LJ 226, (2005) 3 SCT 809.1, (2005) 8 SERV LR 863, 2004 SCC (L&S) 698, (2005) 1 CUR LR 490, (2004) 4 LAB LN 5
Bench: V.N. Khare, S.B. Sinha, S.H. Kapadia
ORDER
1. It is not disputed that the appellant Bank introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (herein referred to as "the Scheme") for its employees which had the approval of its Board of Directors. The Scheme was operative w.e.f. November 15, 2000 to December 14, 2000 for the employees who sought voluntary retirement. It is not disputed that the respondent herein who was an employee of the appellant Bank sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme on November 30, 2000. It is also not disputed that on December 2, 2000 he wrote to the Bank for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. On January 22, 2001, the appellant Bank accepted the request for voluntary retirement of the respondent. Further, on January 25, 2001, the respondent withdrew the retiral benefits deposited in the Bank in his name as per voluntary retirement. It appears that the respondent changed his mind after the respondent was relieved from the employment and he filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred a letters patent appeal which was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the appellants are in appeal before us.
2. A Bench of three Judges of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel , has held that an employee who sought voluntary retirement and subsequently wrote for its withdrawal but has withdrawn the amount of retiral benefits as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is not entitled to the withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. It is not disputed that in the present case the respondent herein withdrew the amount of retiral benefits on January 25, 2001.
3. For the aforesaid reason, this appeal deserves to be allowed. We order accordingly. The order and judgment under challenge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
C.A. Nos. 4099, 4100 of 2002 and 8833 of 2003
4. In view of the above order passed in C.A. No. 4098 of 2002, these appeals arc also allowed. The orders and judgments under challenge are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.