Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr vs S. Ranveer Singh Bawa & Anr on 21 April, 2004

S Ananthaswamy vs The Union Of India on 9 July, 2010

9. In 11riiya].__«-- Cpntentions, I have carefully examined 'the. V with reference to the various documents"»__proVduc_edA'_ the judgments relied upon. It emerges that the-.und_iAsputed facts as adverted to herein above would ma1{e.iit"c1ear that the petitioner had applied for voluntary retiirement.'."'v»«Voliintary Retirement scheme was introduced on V . '1he petitioner had applied on 31.01.2000 and the ",:sa..=:1e_ was accepted and communicated on 09.03.2001 by the .0 to the petitioner. After the voluntary retirement "application was accepted by the Bank, the petitioner has made the request for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement on ié _ 9 _ 27.04.2001 vide AnneXure-D. As is clear from the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Punjab and Sind Bank & Another Vs. S.Ranveer Singh Bawa & Another LLJ 573}, the Voluntary Retirement Scheme nature and it constituted invitation and not anefferp and'--th.:1_t no consideration passed in terms of the SChenmeA'eS.Of tas'-to"bfensv:t:itute an agreement. Therefore, thekrevofcation effective at any time before 'asfup ftiothefldate of such acceptance no legal observation which is found in paragraph--3AA.0.fV:f't_he judgment of the Apex Court judgments in the case of Bank of India 2003 so 858). in the light it has to be stated that though fitfis writ petition that the scheme provides forka_:unilatei*alfdecision on the part of the Bank to rtrejectfffvtfhefv application filed and it makes the "seeking Voluntary retirement irrevocable which tantamount's__to an arbitrary condition, the effect of the same is '*..that while the employee can withdraw the application filed by "1i§i?t1"S€eking voluntary retirement before it was accepted he had 0' no right to Withdraw the same once the same is accepted by the Bank. In that View of the matter, it cannot be said that the it V???' 19 M action of the Bank in the instant case which has refused to entertain the request of the petitioner to withdraw his application filed seeking voluntary retirement after the same was accepted by it cannot be termed as arbitrary or unjust. In fact, the consideration of the Validity of the c}ause._containVedV in 11.5.0 does not arise in this case as the arbitrarily refused the app1icant'sgrepresentationfto iwithdrawbfp the request made for voluntary 9:'retirernentvifbeforefv accepted by it and in fact it was already accepted by 'acceptance was admittedly communicatetilhflto As can be seen from the facts narra._ted the withdrawal application submitted 'the applicarit_.xits_elf makes reference to the fact of acceptance ofpvoluntfafry Vrethrernent application submitted by the petitioner and ._:Vits..v'cornmL.1nication to him.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

V. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy S/O V. Venkat ... vs Andhra Bank (A Govt. Of India ... on 14 December, 2007

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relying on the judgments of the apex Court in Punjab & Sind Bank v. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa and Gyanendra Sahay v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., submitted that once the employee makes application for retirement voluntarily and later withdraws the same, but receives the benefits of the VRS, and there being no undue pressure on the employee to apply for VRS, he is not entitled to turnaround and contend that his request for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement, should be accepted and continued in service. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he submitted application for retirement voluntarily and there was no undue pressure on him for making such an application. However, the fact remains that before expiry of the three months notice period and before he was relieved from service, he made another application on 24.06.2004, both to the Chairman and Managing Director and General Manager of the Andhra Bank, requesting them to permit him to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. However, the respondents without accepting the said request of the petitioner relieved him from service immediately after expiry of the three months notice period. The amounts payable to the petitioner were also paid to him after the expiry of the notice period. Therefore, the facts of the present case, are somewhat different from the facts, which the apex Court had to consider in the judgments relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, and the facts of the said cases not being similar to the case on hand, the ratio laid down in the said judgments, cannot be made applicable to the present case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Om Prakash Chouhan vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 16 May, 2007

The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar case (supra), Vice-Chairman' and Managing Director, A.P. SIDC Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Varaprasad and Ors. (supra), Punjab and Sihd Bank and Anr. v. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa and Anr. (supra) and Bank of India and Ors. v. Pale Ram Dhania (supra) and therefore, the decisions relied on by learned Counsellor the respondents apply with all force to the facts of the instant case.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - H R Panwar - Full Document

Diwakar Alva S/O S Vittala Alva vs The Union Of India on 6 August, 2013

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.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wyeth Employees Union vs Araine Orgachem Pvt. Ltd., Wyeth ... on 16 August, 2007

In Punjab & Sind Bank's case (supra), the Supreme Court was considering whether the respondent who had earlier opted for voluntary retirement scheme could be permitted to withdraw therefrom after having received the payments under the scheme. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent had withdrawn his option on 22/12/2000 and yet without any objection, he received three credits in his account on account of salary including notice pay. Thereafter he repaid his car loan, invested money in PPF and fixed deposits. The Supreme Court further observed that the principle of estoppel extensively discussed in the judgment in O.P. Swarnakar'scase (supra) applied to the facts. The respondent cannot resile from the scheme.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - R P Desai - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next