RAMA KRUSHNA DHAL Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Clerk-cum-Assistant Cashier in United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank), Balasore Branch, Balasore, has filed this application with following prayers:

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner joined as Clerk-cum-Assistant Cashier in UCO bank-opposite party no.1 on 16.01981. While he was working as such, UCO Bank floated a scheme called "UCO Bank Employees' Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000" by issuing circular to all branches/offices vide No. CHO/PMG/19/2000 dated 16.11.2000. The board of directors of the bank in their meeting held on 29th Sept., 2000 and 25th Oct., 2000 adopted the Voluntary Retirement Scheme for the employees of the bank. The same has also got approval of the board of directors. Under the said scheme, an employee opting for voluntary retirement is required to submit duly filled in application in prescribed format on or after 1st Jan., 2001 but not beyond 31st Jan., 2001 directly addressing to the Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Personnel Department, Head Office in an envelope marked "Offer To Seek Voluntary Retirement". The said application was to be forwarded, by the respective branches/offices after making due verification, to the respective regional offices. The application should be considered by the competent authority on the basis of "first cum first served" subject to discretion of the competent authority to the extent of number of employees assessed for the purpose subject to certain conditions mentioned in the scheme itself. The acceptance of application for voluntary retirement was subject to adherence to the procedure envisaged in the scheme itself. On acceptance of application for voluntary retirement of an employee by the competent authority, the concerned employee can submit his application for settlement of his terminal benefits as per procedure laid down by the bank. Annexure-1 to the scheme dated 16.11.2000 indicates detailed procedure and other criteria to be followed for the purpose.

(3.) Mr. Debasis Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the acceptance of application dated 16.04.2001 of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was conditional one to the extent that he would be relieved from service of the bank at the closure of business on 30.04.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner may submit his application for settlement of terminal benefits in normal course. It is contended that as the petitioner was not relieved by 30.04.2001 and was continuing in service, his application for withdrawal of option for voluntary retirement could not have been rejected and he should have been allowed to continue in service as before. It is further contended that the petitioner having applied for VRS under the UCO Bank Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 on 22.01.2001, the subsequent circular issued on 07.04.2001 cannot have any application so far as conversion of "housing loans" of employees of VRS optees into "UCO shelter loan" is concerned. If the subsequent circular dated 07.04.2001 is given effect to and the same is not beneficial to the petitioner and he having moved for withdrawal of the application for VRS, before he being effectively relieved from due date, i.e.,