Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 409 (0.89 seconds)
Documents citing Bank Of India & Ors vs O.P. Swarnakar Etc on 17 December, 2002

Kanwal Nain Singh vs Jagga Singh Disposed Of Of 13.3.2003 on 4 October, 2008

[20]. Clause VIII(d) of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme framed by the Food Corporation of India is somewhat pari-materia to clause 9(i) of the SBPVRS as it provides that - "once an employee submits his application for voluntary retirement under this Scheme to the competent authority, it shall be treated as final and it is not open to the employee to withdraw the L.P.A. No.114 of 2007 -: 11 :- same. The competent authority within notice period (3 months) shall take a decision to accept or reject the request and shall communicate the same to the official concerned". (emphasis applied) [21]. While interpreting the above reproduced clause VIII (d) of the FCI's Scheme, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India and Others v. Ramesh Kumar, (supra), referred to its previous decisions in the cases of Bank of India and others v. O.P. Swaranakar, (supra) and State Bank of Patiala v. Romesh Chander Kanoji's case (supra) and on interpretation thereof, held as follows:-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karsanbhai Jivabhai Chamar vs Executive Engineer on 30 March, 2026

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the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that once an application for voluntary retirement/resignation has been withdrawn before it is actually accepted, thereafter it is not open for the authority to pass any order accepting the same either for voluntary retirement or resignation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.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Thakor vs Ipcl on 13 March, 2009

In view of the above assuming for the sake of examining without concluding that petitioners right to withdraw from the VSS existed till their actual relieving from services and receiving monetary benefits than also their conduct indicate that they waived their right to enforce that right as they have accepted monetary and other benefits flowing from the VSS. As per the observations of the apex court in para no. 114 to 120 in case of Bank of India Vs. O.P. Swarankaer (supra) the petitioner could be said to have waived that right and now therefore they cannot seek any relief on that basis.
Gujarat High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Shiv Ram Verma vs Managing Director, Food Corporation Of ... on 23 March, 2009

Both these decisions are of three Judges Bench and in the earlier decision given in the case of O.P. Swarnakar (supra) Hon'ble Justice Sinha was a party and he was also a party in the subsequent decision in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. Romesh Chandra Kanoji (Supra). We have gone through both the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the parties.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Pradeep Soni And Ors. vs M.P. Road Transport Corporation And ... on 20 July, 2007

23. The submissions so made on the basis of the judgment so passed and cited as aforesaid by the learned Counsel for the MPSRTC also deserves to be accepted. It may be seen that in a subsequent judgment Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Anr. v. Banshi Lal and Ors. 2006 AIR SCW 55 (supra), the earlier judgment passed by the Full Bench in State Bank of Patiala v. Romesh Chander Kanoji and Ors. (supra) was not at all considered though in State Bank of Patiala v. Romesh Chander Kanoji and Ors. (supra), as discussed above, the Full Bench of the Apex Court has considered the question in detail and also distinguish the ratio of Bank of India and Ors. v. O.P. Swarankar etc. (supra).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 45 - D Misra - Full Document

Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr vs S. Ranveer Singh Bawa & Anr on 21 April, 2004

From the averments herein, it is clear that respondent no.1 had two savings bank accounts no.4775 and 4777. He had withdrawn his option on 22.12.2000 and yet without any objection he receives three credits in his account on 27.12.2000, 25.01.2001 and 29.01.2001 on account of salary (including notice pay). Thereafter, he repays his car loan; invests Rs.30,000/- in PPF and Rs.1,42,406.40 in fixed deposit for three years, which is a long term investment. Therefore the principles of estoppel extensively discussed by this Court in the case of Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar (supra) applies to the facts herein. The conduct of respondent no.1 indicates his knowledge about payments in his accounts; that he never objected to such payments and that he had appropriated the amounts for his benefit. Therefore, he cannot resile from the scheme.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

M.P.State Road Transport Corp. vs Manoj Kumar on 29 August, 2016

11) Second argument, in the alternative, was that even if the judgment in O.P. Swarnakar is to be applied, it was specifically held in that case that option of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn by the last date on which the application is to be submitted. In the instant case, these options were withdrawn after the stipulated date. It was pointed out that the High Court did not accept this plea on the ground that since the last date was extended from August 01, 2005 to October 28, 2006 and the applications for withdrawal were not submitted from the said date, the withdrawal applications would be treated as having been submitted before the expiry date mentioned in the Scheme. The learned senior counsel for the Corporation argued with ardor that this was an erroneous approach on the part of the High Court Civil Appeal No. 4437 of 2009 & Ors. Page 13 of 37 inasmuch as the original VRS Scheme promulgated vide order No. 28 dated July 01, 2005 never mentioned any clause for extension of the Scheme and once these employees opted under the said Scheme they were very well informed that the last date is August 01, 2005. It was also submitted that the amendment was carried out for specific purpose, namely, to give opportunity to those who had not yet opted under the Scheme and, therefore, such an extension in the date could not enure to the benefit of those who had already opted and for whom the last date was August 01, 2005.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next