VIJAY KUMAR ANIL Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated March 29, 2001 (Annexure-4) whereby the prayer of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has been accepted and the petitioner was directed to be relieved from the services of the Bank at the close of the office hours on April 20, 2001. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to issue a writ in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate him on the post of Branch Manager in MMG Scale II with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as the Branch Manager of Hajipur Branch of Union Bank of India. The Union Bank of India, hereinafter referred to as the Bank came out with a Scheme known as Union Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000-01. Petitioner opted for retirement under the Scheme by filing application on December 1, 2000 but later on he filed another application dated March 21, 2001 requesting for withdrawal of his earlier option. It is the stand of the petitioner that the respondent Bank, by memo dated March 29, 2001 (Annexure-4), accepted the petitioners request seeking voluntary retirement and directed that the petitioner shall stand relieved from the services of the Bank at the close of office hours on April 20, 2001. It is not in dispute that the petitioner received ex-gratia and other monetary benefits under the Scheme on April 20, 2001. This writ application has been filed on November 19, 2001, i.e. after petitioner received the ex-gratia and other privileges under the Scheme.

(3.) Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had although accepted the ex- gratia and other monetary benefits under the Scheme prior to the filing of the writ application but that itself shall not preclude the petitioner from challenging the order accepting the voluntary retirement and asking for reinstatement in service. In support of his submission, Mr. Mishra has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Krishnamber Jha v. Union of India & Ors., 2000 (2) PLJR 100 and my attention has been drawn to the judgment which reads as follows: