G. GNANA PRAKASH Vs. CANARA BANK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 7.3.2001 vide which the Assistant General Manager, Canara bank, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, rejected the request of the petitioner for Special Voluntary Retirement from service of the Bank. This order is impugned, amongst others, for the grounds that it is arbitrary, contrary to the special voluntary retirement scheme declared by the Bank and in fact is discriminatory inasmuch as large number of employees of the Bank have been permitted to take benefit of the said scheme, though such employees are similarly situated like the petitioner.

(2.) It will be appropriate to refer to the facts giving rise to this petition. The petitioner joined the respondent-Bank as a Clerk on 18.5.1978 at Kurnool Branch in Andhra Pradesh. On 15.4.1988 the petitioner was transferred to Chandigarh Circle as a Clerk and thereafter was promoted to the post of Special Assistant on 18.6.1994. On 12.5.2000 the petitioner was identified for induction into C.P.P.D. set up as E.D.P. Officer and was posted as Circle Officer, Chandigarh. In the letter identifying the petitioner he was also required to execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/-. As per terms of the bond, the petition was to serve the Bank for eight years and if he opted to leave the Bank service, during that period he was required to pay the bond amount with interest at prime landing rate prevalent at that time. The petitioner signed the agreement and executed the requisite bond on 15.5.2000. He joined as Officer (Junior Management Grade) and is continuing to work as such. The respondent-Bank flouted a scheme called the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme. This scheme was to remain in operation for a period of one month from January 1, 2001 to January 31, 2001. The employees who had completed 15 years of actual service or had attained the age of 40 years as on 1.1.2001 were eligible to take advantage of the scheme and were to get the benefits mentioned in that scheme. The petitioner submitted his application on 1.1.2001. The petitioner also offered to return the money of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with interest. The permission was rejected by the respondents vide their letter dated 7.3.2001. According to the petitioner, the rejection order is bad. Even the computation in terms of the scheme was made in favour of the petitioner, but then the permission was suddenly declined. Under the scheme eligible/ non-eligible persons have been specifically stated and the petitioner is certainly eligible and the respondents have illegally and unfairly denied the permission to the petitioner.

(3.) Upon notice, the respondent-Bank filed a detailed reply. The facts are not in controversy, but it is specifically averred that the petitioner is not eligible to take benefit of the scheme as he has to complete eight years of service provided under the bond. According to the respondent-Bank it has an absolute discretion in terms and conditions of the scheme to accept or reject the request of an employee and such decision of the Bank is final and is binding on the employee. Furthermore, the present petition is an abuse of the process of Court as request of the petitioner for grant of voluntary retirement simplicitor has already been acceded to and the petitioner has been relieved from the service of the Bank on 31.5.2001. This fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner till date. According to the Bank, the writ petition should be dismissed.