BANK OF INDIA Vs. PALE RAM DHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. No. 4098 of 2002 it is not disputed that the appellant Bank introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (herein referred to as "the Scheme") for its employees which had the approval of its board of Directors. The Scheme was operative w. e. f. November 15, 2000 to December 14, 2000 for the employees who sought voluntary retirement. It is not disputed that the respondent herein who was an employee of the appellant bank sought voluntary retirement under the scheme on November 30, 2000. It is also not disputed that on December 2, 2000 he wrote to the Bank for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. On January 22, 2001, the appellant Bank accepted the request for voluntary retirement of the respondent. Further, on January 25, 2001, the respondent withdrew the retiral benefits deposited in the bank in his name as per voluntary retirement. It appears that the respondent changed his mind after the respondent was relieved from the employment and he filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement. A learned Single Judge of the High court allowed the petition and set aside the acceptance of the. application for voluntary retirement submitted by the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred a letters patent appeal which was dismissed, It is against the said judgment, the appellants are in appeal before us.

(2.) A Bench of three Judges of this Court in Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar goel 2004 (2) SCC 193 : 2004-1 -LLJ-1057 has held that an employee who sought voluntary retirement and subsequently wrote for its withdrawal but has withdrawn the amount of retiral benefits as per the Voluntary Retirement scheme, is not entitled to the withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. It is not disputed that in the present case the respondent herein withdrew the amount of retiral benefits on January 25, 2001.

(3.) For the aforesaid reason, this appeal deserves to be allowed. We order accordingly. The order and judgment under challenge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. CA. Nos. 4099, 4 WO of 2002 and 883 3 of 2003