Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.54 seconds)
S. K. Seth vs Rites Ltd Through Its on 6 September, 2011 cites

Raj Kumar vs Union Of India on 18 April, 1968

8. Learned counsel representing the applicant would have number of judicial precedents to cite, but, in our view, none of the same is attracted to the facts of the present case. Reliance of the learned counsel on two decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v Union of India [AIR 1969 SC 180] and North Zone cultural Centre & another v Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar [AIR 2003 SC 2719] is wholly misplaced. In fact, the said judicial precedents would not be relevant for the purposes of decision on the point as noted above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 79 - J C Shah - Full Document

Mr. N. Dinakara Shetty, Assistant ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi), Represented By ... on 6 May, 2005

9. Learned counsel representing the applicant then relies upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in N. Dinakara Shetty v Union of India & others [2005 (6) Bom. C.R. 470, Writ Petition No.162/2001 decided on 6.5.2005]. It was a case where the employee of the respondent Bank had sought direction against the Bank to treat his application for voluntary retirement as withdrawn and to continue him in service and not to relieve him with effect from 31.5.2001. The Bank had introduced pension regulations of 1995, which inter alia provided that on or after 1.11.1993 an employee who had completed 20 years of qualifying service could retire from service by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority. The regulations also provided that the qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under the said regulations was to be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed 33 years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. Thereafter vide circular dated 23.11.2000, the Bank introduced a scheme for voluntary retirement, which came into force on 1.12.2000 and was to remain in force until 31.1.2001. The object of the scheme was to enable the Bank to make available human resources possessing skills matching with current and future requirements, of different age groups in right proportions to maintain a well balanced age profile enabling proper succession, planning and in optimum numbers at all levels in tune with the organizational structure and business strategies, who are highly motivated, committed, flexible and responsive to change. The petitioner submitted an application on 6.12.2000. He submitted the said application as irrevocable and unconditional under the said scheme and cited reasons in support of his application. In terms of columns 4 and 5 of the application, the petitioner stated that he had opted for pension under the regulations of 1995, and that he had also sought voluntary retirement under regulation 29. He requested the authorities to waive the requisite notice of three months for seeking voluntary retirement under the said regulations. In terms of column 3 of the application, the petitioner stated that he would ensure closure of all his liabilities due to the Bank before being relieved from service, and in terms of sub-column (a) of column 8, he mentioned what were his liabilities. Vide letter dated 28.2.2001 he was informed that his application for voluntary retirement under the said regulations was accepted by the competent authority, subject to his complying with all the relevant provisions of the scheme. He was also informed that he would be relieved from service on 31.5.2001. This was apparently because clause 11.13.0 of the scheme provided that if due to administrative exigencies, the Bank was unable to relieve any such employee from service, the date of relieving would be postponed for a reasonable period, but not later than one year from the date of acceptance. He was also informed by way of clarification that his application was considered under the said scheme and, therefore, he was ineligible for addition of five years remainder of service, whichever is lower, for purpose of determining pension as well as commutation of pension available under regulation 29. He was also informed that the Bank reserved its right to reject his application any time before relieving him from service in case there was any contemplated disciplinary action initiated or to be initiated against him. After the petitioners application dated 6.12.2000 was accepted by the Bank vide letter dated 28.2.2001, the petitioner vide his letter dated 10.4.2001 informed the Bank that he had inadvertently submitted his voluntary retirement application, which was accepted by them vide letter dated 28.2.2001. He informed that he was now completely upset about his decision which was taken by him due to his domestic problems and mental pressure, which had since eased and he felt that his decision was wrong and, therefore, he sought permission to withdraw his application dated 6.12.2000, and sought an opportunity to continue in service of the Bank. On the facts as mentioned above, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that as he was to be relieved on 31.5.2001, he was entitled to withdraw his application under VRS even after acceptance as the jural relationship between the petitioner and the Bank could be terminated only after the petitioner was relieved from service. Counsel representing the respondent Bank would, however, contend that the petitioners application was under a specially funded scheme and was not a normal application under normal regulations, which provided for voluntary retirement and, therefore, the provisions which would be normally applicable in case of normal retirement or resignation would not be applicable to his case. The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner was that the acceptance was conditional. It was conditional in that it was accepted subject to the payment of all the dues as per the condition contained in clause 11.7.0 of the scheme. It was also conditional in that the petitioner was denied and was informed that he was ineligible for additional five years remuneration of service for the purpose of determining pension as per regulation 29. Counsel representing the Bank would, however, contend that the petitioner had not taken these pleas in either of his letters of withdrawal dated 10.4.2001, as well as 15.5.2001, nor in the petition, as originally filed and they were introduced for the first time by amendment during the hearing of the petition on or about 20.3.2005. the petitioner was bound to comply with clause 11.7.0 of the scheme by which the employees were informed that all amounts payable under the scheme would be subject to prior settlement, repayment in full of all loans, advances, dues etc. Moreover, the petitioner in terms of column 8 of his application dated 6.12.2000 had clearly undertaken to ensure closure of all his liabilities to the Bank before he was relieved from service and not only that, he had also mentioned what were his liabilities in sub-column (a) of column 8 of his application for voluntary retirement dated 6.12.2000, and only because the Bank in their letter dated 28.2.2001 informed the petitioner that he had to comply with clause 11.7.0 of the scheme, it would not mean that the petitioners application for voluntary retirement was accepted conditionally. That was only a clarification mentioned by the Bank in terms of clause 11.7.0 of the scheme and the undertaking given by him. The contention raised by the counsel on both counts as mentioned above was repelled and the petition was dismissed. It is not understandable as to what advantage the applicant would derive from this judgment. Present is a simple case where acceptance of resignation by the employees has been withdrawn before the effective date of its acceptance.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - A P Lavande - Full Document

Aditya Nath Banerjee vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 18 August, 2005

10. Reliance placed by the learned counsel representing the applicant on another judgment of Calcutta High court in Aditya Nath Banerjee v State Bank of India [2005 LawSuit(CAL) 539 = 2006 (2) LLJ 74] is equally misplaced. Brief facts of the case aforesaid reveal that the petitioner sought resignation on 11.10.2001. He submitted his resignation in prescribed manner on 28.12.2001 through proper channel. He was informed vide letter dated 19.4.2002 that his prayer for resignation had been duly forwarded to the appropriate authority for consideration. Vide another letter dated 2.5.2002 the petitioner was asked to appear for an interview before the 2nd respondent on 6.5.2002 at the zonal office. He appeared in terms of the letter aforesaid before the 2nd respondent and narrated his problem. He was verbally advised by the 2nd respondent to seriously consider about withdrawal of his resignation. The 3rd respondent vide letter dated 12.6.2002 intimated the petitioner that his resignation had been accepted by the appropriate authority with immediate effect, but before leaving the Bank the petitioner was to liquidate the Banks loan advances as mentioned therein. After receipt of the letter dated 12.6.2002 the petitioner allegedly intended to serve a copy of the representation dated 30.6.2002 before the 2nd respondent through the 3rd respondent praying for withdrawal of his resignation. It was his case that the said letter could not be served on 13.6.2002, but the office of the 3rd respondent duly received the same on 14.6.2002, i.e., before the date the resignation was to become effective. One plea that was taken in support of the petition was that in terms of the letter dated 12.6.2002 the petitioner neither liquidated the loan advances of the Bank nor submitted his claim for terminal benefits in terms of the letter dated 15.6.2002 and accordingly the letter dated 14.6.2002 communicating the decision of appropriate authority regarding acceptance of resignation had not become final. In the facts as mentioned above, the question that came to be decided was as to whether the resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted before the withdrawal, and whether in a prospective resignation withdrawal can be made before the receipt of the communication of the acceptance. The High Court held as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

North Zone Cultural Center And Anr. vs Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar on 17 April, 2003

In this regard best reliance can be placed in the judgment reported in North Zone Cultural Centre v. Vedapathi Dinesh Kumar (supra) where the effective date has been defined or clarified and it has also been observed that communication of acceptance of resignation is not a mandatory requirement and the resignation becomes effective from the date of its acceptance and not from the date on which the acceptance is communicated to the employee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 58 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Khemi Ram on 6 October, 1969

51. Considering the above position or considering the ratio of the judgments delivered by the Honble Apex Court as referred to above and also getting the instant case tested in the light of the above referred judgments I am of the opinion that the resignation of the petitioner has been duly accepted by the Bank and the petitioner now cannot ask for reinstatement. The Bank authorities are, however, directed to pay off the petitioner all his dues within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. This judgment, in our view, also would be of no assistance to the applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 165 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Power Finance Corporation Ltd vs Pramod Kumar Bhatia on 17 March, 1997

11. The judgment relevant in this case that appears to us would be of the Honble Supreme Court in Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v Pramod Kumar Bhatia [66 (1997) Delhi Law Times 573 (SC)]. The facts of the case aforesaid reveal that the respondent Pramod Kumar Bhatia while working in the appellant corporation applied for voluntary retirement pursuant to the scheme framed by the Corporation to relieve the surplus staff. Initially, by proceedings dated 20.12.1994, the Corporation accepted his resignation subject to the clearance of the outstanding dues. The acceptance was to be given effect from 31.12.1994. By letter dated 6.1.1995, he requested for deduction of a sum of rs.37,521.20 out of the outstanding dues. He also requested that he may be formally relieved from service of the corporation, and his service period for which ex gratia was payable be informed to him and his dues be paid immediately. It was urged on behalf of the appellant Corporation that acceptance of voluntary retirement of the respondent was conditional one, and that he himself understood that unless he was relieved of the duties after payment of outstanding dues, the voluntary retirement would not become effective. In the meanwhile, realizing the mistake committed by the appellant for effecting the voluntary retirement scheme which was not to apply to it as there was no surplus staff with it, the appellant withdrew the scheme. Therefore, there was neither the scheme nor a concluded order of voluntary retirement of the respondent relieving him from the duties. The High Court, it was urged, was not right in holding that the order dated 20.12.1994 had created vested right in the respondent and the same could not be divested by subsequent orders. Upholding the contention aforesaid, it was held that It is now settled legal position that unless the employee is relieved of the duty, after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural relationship of the employee and the employer does not come to an end. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the conditions ought to have been complied with. Before the conditions could be complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective. Thereby no vested right has been created in favour of the respondent. The High Court, therefore, was not right in holding that the respondent has acquired a vested right and, therefore, the appellant has no right to withdraw the scheme subsequently. The appeal was allowed. In the present case, it is the common case of the parties that even though the resignation of the applicant may have been accepted on 5.10.2010 the same was to be effective from 25.10.2010. There was a significant development between 5.10.2010 and 25.10.2010. The applicant was stated to be not clear from vigilance angle. Acceptance of resignation was conditional on vigilance clearance of the applicant, and before the effective date could arrive, because of non-clearance of the applicant from vigilance angle, acceptance of resignation was withdrawn. The order withdrawing acceptance of resignation, in our view, cannot be faulted. The same is perfect and in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 143 - Full Document
1