Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Union Of India & Anr vs Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy on 10 November, 2000
We have also noted the judgment in the case of Union of India and another vs. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, (2001) 1 Supreme Court Case 158, wherein the Supreme Court noted that resignation, which is to have effect from a future date, can be withdrawn at any time before that date. This judgment lays down a broad proposition and will have to be considered in the light of other judgments.
Punjab National Bank vs Virender Kumar Goel & Ors on 21 January, 2004
On behalf of the respondent-petitioner, learned counsel sought to contend that the judgment referred to above including the judgment in O.P. Swarnakar & Ors. (supra), Punjab National Bank (supra) and Virendra Kumar Goel & Ors. (supra) and some other judgments, namely, Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa, (2004) 4 SCC 484; and Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs. Mahendra Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 747, are the judgments rendered under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and a Scheme of option for VRS stands on entirely different footing than an application seeking voluntary retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 (C) of the Fundamental Rules.
Bank Of India & Ors vs O.P. Swarnakar Etc on 17 December, 2002
To our mind, this distinction really cannot be applied considering the law laid down in O.P. Swarnakar (supra), wherein in the case of State Bank of India, the appeal was allowed considering that the scheme was statutory. In the instant case also, the provision for voluntary retirement is under Fundamental Rule 56 (C) which is a statutory provision and, therefore, though the Rule provides for withdrawal, yet at the same time permission is required to be sought from the appointing authority. In the instant case, we have found that the respondent herein (original petitioner) gave the letter of withdrawal on Saturday night, Sunday was the next day and he was due to be relieved on 31st August, 2009. Thus, the appointing authority would have no time to consider the case or to apply his mind. Secondly, we may also note that the principle of approbate and reprobate has not been held not to be applicable in respect of a statutory provision, though a distinction in the matter of withdrawal has been made between contractual scheme and a statutory scheme. The principle that a person should not approbate or reprobate has to be applied considering that the petitioner, respondent herein, had applied for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement knowing that he had not received any notice of having been withdrawn or permission granted to withdraw it. He had also accepted the terminal benefits.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Raghuvir Singh Narang & Anr on 25 February, 2010
The Court in paragraphs 114 and 115, had held that those who had accepted ex gratia payment or any other benefit under the scheme, could not have resiled therefrom and that the employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand. The appeal, therefore, preferred by the Nationalised Banks were dismissed but not insofar as the State Bank of India is concerned, where it was held that the scheme was statutory in character and the appeal preferred by the State Bank of India was allowed. In the review filed, the Supreme Court held that those who had withdrawn the money knowing that the money deposited in the account was part of the benefit of the scheme and that the request for VRS had been accepted, such employees would not be allowed to withdraw their resignation. A similar issue again came upon for consideration before the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Raghuvir Singh Narang & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 335. We may gainfully reproduce the following observations from the said judgement:-
Punjab & Sind Bank & Anr vs S. Ranveer Singh Bawa & Anr on 21 April, 2004
On behalf of the respondent-petitioner, learned counsel sought to contend that the judgment referred to above including the judgment in O.P. Swarnakar & Ors. (supra), Punjab National Bank (supra) and Virendra Kumar Goel & Ors. (supra) and some other judgments, namely, Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa, (2004) 4 SCC 484; and Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs. Mahendra Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 747, are the judgments rendered under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and a Scheme of option for VRS stands on entirely different footing than an application seeking voluntary retirement under Fundamental Rule 56 (C) of the Fundamental Rules.
Balram Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 1 September, 1987
The Court also noted the judgment in Balram Gupta (supra) and observed that an employee, who gives notice of voluntary retirement to take effect prospectively from a subsequent date, is at liberty to withdraw the notice any time before it comes into effect. But this normal rule would not apply, where having regard to the statutory rules governing the matter, the employee cannot withdraw except with the approval of the concerned authority, but such approval cannot be the ipse dixit of the approving authority. He should act reasonably and rationally. He cannot keep the matter pending for unduly long time for dealing with applications of employees similarly situated.