Delhi High Court
Union Bank Of India And Ors. vs V.K. Sharma on 14 February, 2006
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.7.2001.
2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. By means of the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to permit him to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement and to allow him to continue in service with all consequential benefits.
4. The writ petitioner was an employee of the respondent bank. The bank had issued a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in 2000 and the petitioner had applied for VRS by letter dated 11.12.2000 vide annexure P2 to the writ petition. Subsequently by letter dated 12.12.2000 he sought to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement dated 11.12.2000 vide annexure P3 to the writ petition. However, the respondent bank relieved the petitioner on 31.1.2001 and refused to allow the petitioner to withdraw his above option seeking voluntary retirement on the ground that he had accepted the benefits under the VRS Scheme. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
5. A counter affidavit was filed by the appellant bank (respondent in the writ petition). It is stated in paragraph 5 of the same that the VRS Scheme was a one time limited duration scheme which was open between 1.12.2000 to 31.12.2000. The employees were given three weeks time before the commencement of the scheme and four weeks time during its currency to deliberate and decide whether they wanted to apply for voluntary retirement or not.
6. As per clause (i) of the scheme an employee submitting an application for VRS under the scheme was not allowed an option to withdraw the same meaning thereby that the option once given was final. The scheme was open for a very limited period of one month and the option given was irrevocable.
7. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that petitioner opted for the scheme on 11.12.2000 in full knowledge of the provisions of the scheme including the clause regarding the irrevocability of the scheme. However, on 12.12.2000 he sought to withdraw his offer for VRS.
8. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and hence this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bank of India vs. O.P.Swarnakar & Others of which it is stated:-
114. However it is accepted that a group of employees accepted the ex gratia payment. Those who accepted the ex gratia payment or any other benefit under the Scheme, in our considered opinion, could not have resoled there from.
115. The Scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right derived by the employees concerned, therefore, could be waived. The employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit cold not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand.
10.The said decision came up for further consideration in a number of other cases e.g. Bank of India vs. Pale Rame Dhania, Punjab National Bank Vs. Virender Kumar Goel & Ors. Punjab & Sindh Bank & Anr. Vs. S.Ranveer Singh Bawa, and the same view was followed.
11. A conjoint reading of all the above judgments which elaborate and clarify the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the first judgment (Bank of India v. O.P. Swarmakar) hold that wherever the concerned employee was paid the VRS benefits by crediting the same into his account to his knowledge and the same had been utilized by the said employee including even for making a long term investment like Fixed Deposit (as held in Ranveer Singh Bawa's case) then the said employee is to be considered as covered by exception carved out in the above paragraphs and is not entitled for reinstatement.
12. In the present case the total VRS benefit was Rs. 9,52,463.31. The net of the VRS benefits namely Ex gratia payment and the leave encashment after deducting the outstanding loans and the TDS amounting to Rs. 6,37,963.31 were credited into the saving account of the respondent on 22.2.2001 under intimation to him (by registered letter dated 22.2.2001 with copy by UPC, i.e. Annexure A-3). He never objected or protested against the same. As per the provisions of Clause 2 (H) of the Union Bank of India VRS 2000, either the employee had to repay the outstanding loans before getting the VRS benefits or he could opt for the adjustment of the same from the said benefits. In the present case a part of the VRS benefits amounting to Rs. 3,14,500/- (outstanding loans Rs. 1,79,000/- and the TDS was Rs. 1,35,000/-) had been adjusted by the bank as per the wishes of the respondent in his application for VRS before credit of the same to his account towards the payment of his outstanding. The statement of account where the same was credited (Annexure A-4) clearly show that the credited amount was also substantially used by the respondent for making a Fixed Deposit and some amounts were also withdrawn. Out of the credited amount, the respondent got a fixed deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- made from the account and has also made other withdrawals. Hence, in view of our decision in LPA 396/2001 Punjab National Bank v. C. S. Sanon, decided on 13th February, 2006, the petitioner could not withdraw his application.
13. It is also pertinent to mention that in one of the cited case namely that of Virender Kumar Goel, the deposit of the benefits was made subsequent to the acceptance of the VRS request. The VRS application was accepted on 6.1.2001 whereas the amounts were credited in the account on 12.1.2001 and 15.1.2001 but still the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered him to be covered by the exception. However in many of the cases the time of payment (deposit) is not clear.
14. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner could not withdraw from the scheme.
15. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
