K GOPAL KRISHNA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal, is filed against the judgment dated 14. 6. 2006 in Writ Petition No. 46367 of 2001 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition.

(2.) THE appellant was an Officer in the Syndicate Bank which is the respondent in the writ petition and the writ appeal. The Syndicate Bank employees' Pension Regulations, 1993 provided for seeking voluntary retirement on fulfillment of certain conditions mentioned under Regulation 29. According to Regulation 29, on or after the first day of November 1993, at any time after an employee has completed 25 years of qualifying service, he may by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. The notice of voluntary retirement given by the employee shall require acceptance by the appointing authority, provided that, where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the said period, an employee who has elected to retire under the Regulations and has given necessary notice to the effect to the 'appointing Authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority considering that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. The appellant submitted Annexure-B application dated 24. 7. 2000 to the General Manager of the respondent-Bank stating that he intended to get relieved from the services of the bank under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He requested the Bank to consider his request for relieving him from the service of the Bank under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and oblige. He clarified that it was an unconditional request for accepting his application under Voluntary retirement Scheme. He confirmed that he had opted for pension and he was eligible to apply under Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He also stated that he was seeking retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme as he was suffering from diabetes for the last twenty years and was using insulin for the last six years. He further stated that he was having gall stones and acidity. He also stated that he was not keeping good health. He specifically requested that he may be relieved from the services of the bank after completion of the notice period of three months. As per annexure-C letter dated 10. 8. 2000, the respondent acknowledged the receipt of the appellant's application for voluntary retirement. However, the appellant submitted Annexure-D representation to the Deputy General manager of the respondent-Bank stating that he intended to opt for the new Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Golden Handshake) introduced by the Government and hence he was withdrawing his earlier application dated 24. 7. 2000 seeking Voluntary Retirement under the Syndicate Bank employees' Pension Regulations, 1993. The respondent-Bank did not act upon Annexure-D representation of the appellant. Therefore, the respondent sent Annexure-H Letter dated 10. 10. 2000 to the appellant informing him that the competent authority had rejected his request for withdrawal of notice for voluntary retirement. Pursuant to Annexure-F and Annexure-H, the appellant was relieved from the services of the Bank on 27. 10. 2000. According to the appellant, he made several representations to the respondent personally and also through the Syndicate Bank Officers' association requesting to permit him to continue in the service of the Bank, but the respondent-Bank did not give any specific response to such representations. Thereafter the appellant was paid all his retirement benefits like gratuity and he received the same without any demur. He was also drawing pension regularly under the Pension Regulations of the bank. After over a year, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 46367 of 2001 on 13. 12. 2001 praying to quash Annexure-H or to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to retire under Voluntary Retirement scheme, 2000. The respondent contested the claim of the appellant by filing statement of objections. It was specifically pleaded by the respondent that the writ petitioner/appellant had acquiesced in his relief from services on 27. 10. 2000 and had accepted the same without any demur and therefore, his claim in the writ petition had become stale and hence it cannot be granted by the Court. According to the respondent, the writ petitioner was guilty of delay and laches and on that ground alone, he was not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of Constitution of India. It was also contended by the respondent that an employe who submitted application for voluntary retirement under the Syndicate Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1993 had no right to withdraw the application except with the specific approval of the competent authority. In the case of the petitioner, the request for approval to withdraw the application was refused and therefore, the petitioner was liable to be relieved from service on 27. 10. 2000. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that having accepted the retrial benefits without any protest, the petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate or reprobate, nor can he be permitted to resile from his earlier stand and that those who accepted the ex-gratia payment or any other benefit under the Scheme could not have resiled therefrom. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, this writ appeal has been filed.

(3.) THERE is no dispute on the facts stated above. Hence the only question to be considered is whether the learned Single Judge was right and justified in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner/appellant had received the retrial benefits without any protest and filed the writ petition long after the relief from service and from receipt of retrial benefits like gratuity.