Karnataka High Court
Diwakar Alva S/O S Vittala Alva vs The Union Of India on 6 August, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT APPEAL NO.3230 OF 2010(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri Diwakar Alva
S/o Sri S.Vittala Alva
Aged about 57 years
General Manager,
Department of Information Technology
Vijaya Bank Head Office,
No.41/2, M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Also at No.260/2C
1st Floor, 6th Cross,
Kaggadasapura Extension,
C.V.Raman Nagara,
Bangalore - 560 93. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri B.S.Mahendra, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The Union of India
Represented by the Secretary
Government of India,
Ministry of Finance,
New Delhi.
2. Vijaya Bank
(A Government of India Undertaking)
Represented by
The Chairman and Managing Director,
Vijaya Bank Head Office,
No.41/2, M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Chairman and Managing Director
Vijaya Bank Head Office,
No.41/2, M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Executive Director
Vijaya Bank Head Office,
No.41/2, M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
5. The General Manager
Personal Department (HRD)
Personal Administration and Pension Division
Vijaya Bank Head Office,
No.41/2, M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
6. The Chief Manager
V.R.S.Cell, Personnel Department,
Vijaya Bank Head Office,
No.41/2, M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
3
(By Sri T.M.Venkatareddy, Advocate for R1
Sri Sundaraswamy Ramdas & Sri Anand, Advocate for
C/R2-R6)
*****
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
passed in Writ Petition No.2131/2002 dated 09.07.2010.
This Writ Appeal coming on for hearing this day,
K.L.Manjunath J., delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The legality and the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No.2131/2002 dated 9th July, 2010, is called in question in this appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appellant was an employee of the 2nd respondent Bank. He joined the Bank on 13-8-1973 as Trainee Officer. He was promoted from time to time. While he was working as Senior Manager on account of introduction of voluntary retirement Scheme 2000 by the 2nd respondent-bank dated 23-11-2010, the appellant applied for seeking 4 voluntary retirement pursuant to the scheme on 31st January, 2001. The application filed by the appellant for grant of voluntary retirement was accepted by the Bank on 9-3-2001 and the same was communicated to the appellant on the same day. However, on 11-1-2002 the appellant intended to withdraw the application filed for voluntary retirement by sending one more application which application came to be rejected on the ground that when once an application seeking voluntary retirement is accepted the same cannot be permitted to be withdrawn at the instance of the appellant. The rejection of the application was challenged by the appellant before the learned single Judge challenging certain provisions of Vijaya Bank (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000 as ultravires to certain provisions of the Constitution and to quash the endorsement issued by the Bank by permitting the appellant to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation.
5
3. The learned single Judge after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of VICE-CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.SIDDC LTD., AND ANOTHER vs. R.NARAPRASAD & OTHERS reported in (2003) 11 SCC 572 and PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ANOTHER vs. S.RANVEER SINGH BAWA & ANOTHER reported in 2004(II) LLJ 573 came to the conclusion that when once an employee has submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement he has no power to withdraw the same after acceptance. Relying upon the Judgments of the Apex Court the writ petition came to be dismissed.
4. Challenging the correctness of the same the present appeal is filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the learned counsel appearing for the parties. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the learned single Judge has wrongly considered the Judgment 6 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court without considering the Judgment of the Apex court in the case of SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA vs. PROJECT & DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA & ANOTHER reported in (2000)5 SCC 621. Therefore he requests the Court to reconsider the matter.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent we have noticed the learned counsel for the appellant is not disputing the legal proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Judgments relied upon by the learned single Judge. The facts in the present case and the facts in the case of PUNJAB AND SIND BANK & ANOTHER vs. S.RANVEER SINGH BAWA & ANOTHER reported in 2004(II) LLJ 573 are similar and identical. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that when once an application is filed seeking voluntary retirement pursuant to agreement of Scheme it amounts to contract and the parties are bound by the same. This Courts cannot hold 7 that the learned single Judge has committed an error in dismissing the writ petition. Under the circumstances, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Rsk/-