Rajasthan High Court
Satya Prakash Saxena vs State Bank Of India And Ros ... on 20 March, 2024
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2024:RJ-JP:14128]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2186/2001
Satya Prakash Saxena son of Late Shri R.S. Saxena, aged about
59 years, Resident of 325, Vasundhara Colony, Tonk Road,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank Of India, through its Chairman- Central Office.
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai.
2. The General Manger, State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
New Delhi through Dy. General Manager, Zonal Office, Nehru
Place, Jaipur.
3. The Assistant General Manager, S.B.I. Region-I Zonal Office,
Nehru Place, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Asthana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Taran Gupta with
Ms. Shivalika Srivastva
Ms. Krati Gaur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
20/03/2024
1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in
the facts and circumstances stated above,
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept
and allow this reply of your humble
answering respondents and the writ petition
so filed by the petitioner may kindly be
dismissed with costs in favour of your
humble answering respondents.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may
deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be
[2024:RJ-JP:14128] (2 of 3) [CW-2186/2001]
granted in favour of your humble answering
respondents."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Money Tester on 25.05.1966
in the Respondent-Bank and during the course of employment,
had applied for the SBI-VRS Scheme offered by the respondent-
Bank (Annexure- 1). The period of application under the said
scheme was limited to 15.01.2001 to 31.01.2001. It was further
submitted that the application made by the petitioner under SBI-
VRS Scheme was denied by a letter dated 31.03.2001, on the
ground of 'Disciplinary Action Proceedings' (Annexure-4). In this
regard, it was contended that only an 'administrative warning'
notice was issued qua the petitioner (Annexure R1/5), but the said
notice was never challenged by the petitioner.
3. Per Contra learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
the provisions of the VRS Scheme categorically spell out the
eligibility criteria for acceptance of application, wherein,
'Disciplinary Action' is mentioned as a ground for rejection
(Annexure R1/1). Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2006) 7 SCC 664 titled as
Board of Trustees Vs. T.S.N. Raju and Ors. whereby, it was
observed that Voluntary Retirement is not a vested right of an
individual.
4. Heard and considered.
5. After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for
both the sides and upon a further perusal of the record, the
following pertinent facts emerge, as noted herein-under:-
[2024:RJ-JP:14128] (3 of 3) [CW-2186/2001]
5.1 The VRS Scheme dated 29.12.2000 has categorically spelled
out 'Disciplinary Action', as a ground for rejection of the
application preferred by the employee. In this regard, reference
can be made to Annexure-R1/1.
5.2 That through a plethora of judgments, as enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, it has been time and again held that
voluntary retirement is not a vested right of an individual. In this
regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of T.S.N. Raju
(Supra).
5.3 That the factum of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings
against the petitioner is established by Annexures-4 and 5.
5.4 The petitioner has already retired from service and has
accepted the retirement dues without any protest.
6. Therefore, in light of the foregoing observations read
cumulatively, this court is not inclined to interfere in the present
petition.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
DEEPAK/19
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
