Allahabad Bank vs Asim Nag

Ashok Kumar Mathur, C.J.—This is an appeal directed against the order passed by a Learned Single Judge whereby the Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed that the Petitioner is entitled to continue in service without any break and directed the Respondent to pass appropriate order in this respect. Aggrieved against this order dated August 2, 2001 the present appeal has been filed by the Management Bank, that is, Allahabad Bank.

Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the Petitioner was an officer of the Allahabad Bank and he exercised his option for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme on September 27, 2000, but he revoked his offer of voluntary retirement by his communication dated February 16, 2001. The authorities forwarded this communication of voluntary retirement to the higher authorities on February 19, 2001. However, the higher authorities accepted the offer of voluntary retirement on April 16, 2001 and retired the incumbent on April 16, 2001 despite his withdrawal of the offer of voluntary retirement. As per the Scheme of voluntary retirement the incumbent is to give his option to retire voluntarily and there is also stipulation that once the voluntary retirement option is given, that is irrevocable. But the Learned Single Judge found that before voluntary retirement could be effective or the voluntary retirement is acted upon by the Bank the Petitioner revoked his option of voluntary retirement and the authorities has passed the order after the revocation of voluntary retirement offer.

Therefore the Learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Appellant accepting the offer of voluntary retirement of the Petitioner on the ground that before it could be acted upon, the incumbent has already revoked it. Therefore, the Learned Single Judge held that the order of voluntary retiring the Petitioner is illegal and set aside the same. The Learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development India and Another, reported and another decision of the Apex Court decided in the case of Union of India v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy 2001(1) S.C.C. 158 reported and Balaram Gupta v. Union of India 1987 (Suppl.) S.C.C. 228 reported. However, now the whole controversy has been put to rest by the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bank of India and Others Vs. O.P. Swaranakar etc., reported. In this case Voluntary Retirement Scheme had come up for consideration of the Apex Court and the Apex Court after considering the matter have already laid down the law with regard to such voluntary retirement, which reads as:

A Labour Law - Retirement - Voluntary retirement - VRS - Punjab National Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 - Nature of - Held, it constituted an invitation to treat and not a proposal or an offer, the acceptance of which by an employee could fructify in a concluded contract - More so, when no consideration was passed from either side - It was rather the Bank''s acceptance of the employee''s proposal that would constitute a promise and culminate in an enforceable contract - Hence, in absence of any other binding contract or statutory provision to the contrary, such proposal, held, attracted Section 5, Contract Act - Hence, despite the prohibition clause in the Scheme, High Court rightly held that the employee could withdraw his option for the Scheme before the said was accepted - More so, when the option was withdrawn when a proviso was sought to be added to Regn. 28 of the Pension Regulations for payment of only pro rata pension instead of full pension to employees voluntarily retiring under the Scheme without completing the qualifying period of service postulated in the Regulations - Punjab National Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000, para 10.5 - Request for voluntary retirement - Withdrawal of, despite the prohibition under para. 10.5 - Permissibility - Contract Act, 1872, Sections 5 and 2(a), (b), (g) & (h) - ''offer'', ''proposal'', ''acceptance'' What amount to - Determination of - Various treatises considered - Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, Regns. 28 and 29 - Words and phrases - ''Offer'' - Service Law-Voluntary retirement-Withdrawal from VRS before its acceptance.

The Apex Court discussed the whole Scheme and found it to be a contractual in nature, and once it is a contractual in nature it is open for the Management to accept or not to accept the offer. Had the offer given by the Petitioner accepted by the authorities before be revoked that then communication would have been completed. But before his offer could be accepted he revoked the same therefore there was no offer before the authority. As such the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct.

Hence, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bank of India and Others Vs. O.P. Swaranakar etc., the view taken by the Learned Single Judge is correct and there is no ground to interfere in this Appeal and consequently the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

N.B. If an urgent xerox certified copy of the judgment is applied for, the same is to be supplied to the applicant at an early date.

Jayanta Kumar Biswas J.

I agree