Ashok Mehrotra vs State Bank Of India & Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 4262 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No.6813/2002

%                                                    26th May, 2015

ASHOK MEHROTRA                                             ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. N.D. Pancholi, Advocate with
                                         Mr. Amit Srivastav, Advocate.

                          versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                  Through:               Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employee of the respondent

no.1/State Bank of India, seeks the relief that petitioner's application for

voluntary retirement which was given in the validity period of 15.1.2001 to

31.1.2001, be accepted by the respondent no.1/Bank and petitioner be given

voluntary retirement alongwith all benefits flowing from the VRS Scheme.


2.           There are two issues which require consideration in this case.

The first issue is whether the respondent no.1/Bank is justified in rejecting

WP(C) No.6813/2002                                                            Page 1 of 4
 the application for voluntary retirement in view of para 3(ii) of the SBI VRS

Scheme on the ground that the respondent no.1/Bank need not accept a VRS

application of a person against whom disciplinary proceedings are

contemplated/pending. This stand of the respondent no.1/Bank is based on

the factual position that the departmental proceedings were pending against

the petitioner during the validity period of the scheme and which

departmental proceedings concluded only thereafter in terms of the order of

the Disciplinary Authority dated 22.3.2001 imposing the punishment of

censure upon the petitioner. The second issue which is required to be

addressed by this Court is that even if respondent no.1/Bank was not

justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on

the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending during the validity of

the period of VRS Scheme and only a punishment of censure was imposed

upon the petitioner, yet the respondent no.1/Bank was justified in rejecting

the VRS application on the ground that the petitioner after the rejection of

his application for voluntary retirement in fact has received promotion to the

post of Special Assistant in terms of the letter dated 12.5.2001 and that too

retrospectively from 1.4.1999, and, further that after receiving such benefits

that petitioner in fact resigned from the services of the respondent no.1/Bank

in terms of his letter dated 21.4.2001 and which was accepted by the
WP(C) No.6813/2002                                                          Page 2 of 4
 respondent no.1/Bank vide letter dated 19.5.2001 w.e.f 20.5.2001.


3.           In my opinion, the discussion on the second issue will suffice

for decision of the present case and for which I am presuming that the first

issue is to be decided in favour of the petitioner. In my opinion, petitioner is

clearly estopped from claiming VRS inasmuch as petitioner after the expiry

of the period of the VRS Scheme received benefits of promotion in terms of

the letter dated 12.5.2001 of the respondent no.1/Bank and that too

retrospectively from 1.4.1999. This benefit, and consequential monetary

emoluments petitioner would not have received in case petitioner's VRS

application would have been accepted. In fact, not only the petitioner is

estopped from claiming VRS on account of receiving subsequent promotion

and consequential monetary emoluments, petitioner admits in para 8 of the

writ petition itself that the petitioner resigned in terms of his letter dated

21.4.2001 and which was accepted by the respondent no.1/Bank vide its

letter dated 19.5.2001. Curiously I may note that petitioner has not filed this

letter of resignation dated 21.4.2001 and has also not filed the acceptance of

resignation by the respondent no. 1/Bank dated 19.5.2001. I am of the

opinion that these documents have been deliberately not filed because the act

of resignation by the petitioner would be a voluntary act without any

WP(C) No.6813/2002                                                          Page 3 of 4
 coercion and it would not be the case of the petitioner in the resignation

letter that he is giving his resignation letter under force and without

prejudice to his rights to claim benefits under the VRS Scheme. Be it noted

that effect of resignation is to wipe out the entire service record unless

service benefits are specifically provided pursuant to resignation, but even if

this aspect is ignored because I do not have to look into the same, the fact of

the matter would be that the petitioner cannot blow hot and cold at the same

time i.e seek benefits of VRS and benefits of promotion which petitioner

would have not got on his being successful in seeking VRS. Petitioner is

therefore clearly barred from filing this writ petition on account of the

petitioner having voluntarily resigned from the services of the respondent

no.1/Bank pursuant to his application for resignation dated 21.4.2001 and

also because petitioner is estopped from filing this writ petition as petitioner

has received benefits of promotion and monetary emoluments which he

would not have got in case his VRS application was accepted.


4.           Dismissed.




MAY 26, 2015                                      VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne