B.Varadharajan v. The Deputy Managing Director,State Bank of India,Corporate Centre,Madam Cama road,Mumbai-400 021.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 08.03.2010CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. RAJAW.P.No.17258 of 2008and M.P.Nos.1, 2 of 2008 and 1/2009B.Varadharajan ..PetitionerVs.1.The Deputy Managing Director,State Bank of India,Corporate Centre,Madam Cama road,Mumbai-400 021.2.The General Manager (D&PB),State Bank of India,Local Head Office,Chennai – 600 006.3.The Deputy General Manager,State Bank of India,Zonal Office, Kurinji Complex,Coimbatore.4.The Asst. General Manager,State Bank of India,Fort Main Road, Salem – 636 001...RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to issue a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for therecords relating to 2nd respondent's order dated 27.05.2008 and quashthe same and direct the respondents to accept the petitioner'svoluntary retirement application dated 28.08.2003 and allow him toretire from service w.e.f. 1.9.2003 and settle all the retirementbenefits and pensionery benefits with interest within the timeprescribed and pass such further orders.For Petitioner : Mr.M.MuthappanFor Respondents: Mr.K.Sankaran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERThe Petitioner, B.Varadharajan, has filed this writ petitionseeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the recordsrelating to 2nd respondent's order dated 27.05.2008 and quash the sameand direct the respondents to accept the petitioner's voluntaryretirement application dated 28.08.2003 and allow him to retire fromservice w.e.f. 1.9.2003 and settle all the retirement benefits andpensionery benefits with interest within a specified time.2. The petitioner joined the respondents' State Bank of India(hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') as a Clerk-cum-Cashier on20.09.1977 at Polur Branch, Tiruvannamalai District. After hispromotion as Assistant Manager on 01.08.1995, he was transferred toSalem Main Branch as Assistant Manager (Accounts). Due to somefamily problem, without notice, the petitioner tendered his requestfor voluntary retirement on 28.08.2003, which is to take effect from01.09.2003. Since the said written request was not in proper format,he further resubmitted his request for voluntary retirement to the 2ndrespondent through 4th respondent. The 4th respondent also informed,by letter dated 08.09.2003, that his application has been forwardedto the competent authority with an instruction that he would continuein service till the approval of competent authority was communicatedto him. But, due to his family situation, the petitioner could notcontinue in service. Again, the 4th respondent, by his letter dated1.11.2003, sought some information regarding non filling of certainparticulars in the said application, for which the petitioner is saidto have replied vide his letter dated 11.11.2003. Once again, on31.12.2003, the 4th respondent has directed the petitioner to furnishsome more particulars with regard to his voluntary retirement and,further, he was also directed to appear for an exit interview on16.12.2004 before the 3rd respondent by letter dated 10.02.2004. Whenthe petitioner attended the exit interview, he was directed towithdraw his voluntary retirement application and, accordingly, thepetitioner also withdrew his application. Once again, due to variousincidents in his personal life, the petitioner withdrew hiswithdrawal letter dated 20.02.2004 by fax message dated 28.02.2004followed by his letter dated 15.03.2004 with a request to the 3rdrespondent to settle his retirement benefits. 3. The question that arises for consideration is, whether thepetitioner after withdrawing his request letter seeking voluntaryretirement from the service of the Bank, can once again, withoutsubmitting fresh application for voluntary retirement, withdraw hiswithdrawal letter dated 20.02.2004 by fax message dated 28.02.2004followed by another letter dated 15.03.2004?4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ view of the various circumstances, the petitioner submitted hisletter for voluntary retirement. In the exit interview before the 3rdrespondent, he was advised to withdraw the request for voluntaryretirement and, accordingly, he has withdrawn his letter, but due tosome personal grievances, the petitioner has decided to retire fromthe service of the Bank. Therefore, he withdrew his letter forvoluntary retirement submitted earlier without knowing theproceedings to resubmit the application. Therefore, under the bonafide impression that after withdrawing his withdrawal letter dated20.02.2004 by fax message dated 28.02.2004 followed by another letterdated 15.03.2004, the petitioner was under the impression that hisoriginal request for voluntary retirement would be restored back andon that basis, he did not attend the office. Therefore, hissubsequent absence from attending the office will not constitute anymisconduct as alleged by the bank. 5. Further case of the petitioner is that, in view of his deemedstatus of voluntary retirement, the petitioner promotional benefitsas well as his pension should have been settled and since the samewas not settled, the petitioner made a representation on 26.09.2007.When there was no response from the Bank, the petitioner filedW.P.No.8968/2008 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondentsto accept his voluntary retirement application dated 28.08.2003 andto settle all the pensionary and retirements benefits forthwith.But, this Court, at the admission stage itself, by an order dated11.04.2008, without going into merits of the matter, directedrespondents 2 to 4 to pass appropriate order on his application dated28.08.2003 within a period of four weeks. But, the 2nd respondent,pursuant to the order passed by this Court, by an order dated27.5.2008, rejected the request of the petitioner, since he hadalready withdrawn his application by his earlier letter dated22.02.2004. However, the 2nd respondent has stated that thepetitioner was entitled to seek voluntary retirement by giving freshapplication and the same was also served upon the petitioner through4th respondent on 04.06.2008. Aggrieved by the said order dated27.05.2008, the present writ petition has been filed with the prayeras stated above.6. Refuting the averment made by the petitioner, learned counselappearing for the Bank submitted that the petitioner's claim forvoluntary retirement has been rejected by an order dated 27.05.2008,since the petitioner had withdrawn his application, by his letterdated 22.02.2004. However, the petitioner was also informed to seekvoluntary retirement by giving fresh application, and without makinga application, the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement,legally, cannot be considered. Further, once his request forvoluntary retirement was legally rejected, he has to report for dutyimmediately, failing which, disciplinary proceedings will have to beinitiated. The petitioner also, after proper advise in the exit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interview, withdrew his request for voluntary retirement andexpressed his willingness to report for duty on 28.02.2004 on accountof changed family circumstances. Further, the petitioner alsorequested that his absence from 01.09.2003 to 27.02.2004, be treatedas extraordinary leave by submitting his letter dated 20.02.2004.Though, he requested that his absence from 01.09.2003 to 27.02.2004be treated as extraordinary leave and shown his willingness to reportfor work on 28.02.2004, he did not report for work on 28.02.2004.Instead once again, he pressed for his retirement as stated in hisletter dated 20.02.2004, though, the bank transferred the petitionerto the place of his choice at Udhagamandalam vide his letter dated15.03.2004. However, in response to the letter of the petitionerdated 20.02.2004, he was advised to furnish a fresh applicationseeking voluntary retirement with prospective effect by letter dated29.03.2004, but the petitioner did not respond for over three yearsand by his letter dated 08.08.2007, once again, the petitionerrequested that his request for retirement from 01.09.2003 may beaccepted. In this view of the matter, the respondents sought fordismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either and perused thematerials available on record.8. When the petitioner's representation dated 08.08.2007 made tothe 2nd respondent through 4th respondent, requesting to settle all thebenefits at the earliest, but the same was not considered by therespondents. Again, he made another representation by way ofreminder on 26.09.2007, though the petitioner was still in service,to settle his pensionary benefits. As his application for voluntaryretirement was not considered, the petitioner has filedW.P.No.8968/2008 to issue a writ of mandamus to direct therespondents to accept the voluntary retirement application dated28.08.2003 and settle all the pensionary retirement benefits. ThisCourt, while dismissing the said writ petition, directed therespondents 2 to 4 to pass appropriate order on his application dated28.08.2003 within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the orderpassed by this Court, the 2nd respondent rejected his request forvoluntary retirement by an order dated 27.05.2008, on the ground thatthe petitioner had withdrawn his application for voluntary retirementvide his letter dated 22.02.2004. Further, the 2nd respondent, whilegiving the above said direction, granted liberty to the petitioner toseek voluntary retirement by giving fresh application. But, it isnot known as to why the petitioner has not come forward to submit afresh application for voluntary retirement from the service of therespondents.9. The law dealing with acceptance of VRS and withdrawal of theoption has been laid down in different judgments of the Apex Courtfrom time to time. The earliest in this behalf is in the case of Raj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1969 SC 180. In thatmatter, an I.A.S. Officer had asked the government to relieve himfrom service. The government accepted it. However, before thecommunication of the order accepting resignation reached theappellant, the appellant withdrew his offer. Yet, the Supreme Courtheld that the appellant had no locus to withdraw his offer ofresignation, after it was accepted. This Court also held that therewas no rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of Indiawhen the resignation becomes effective.Useful reference can also be made from a judgment of this Courtrendered in W.P. No.7658/07, etc., dated 30th Sept., 2009, in which Iwas also one of the member. In the abovesaid judgment, the FirstBench of this Court has held as follows :-"54. In Raj Narain Vs. Smt.Indira Nehru Gandhireported in AIR 1972 SC 1302 the Apex Court held thatthe services of a government servant normally standsterminated from the date on which the letter ofresignation is accepted, unless there is any law tothe contrary. 55. The judgment in Balram Gupta (Supra) willhave to be looked at on this background.56. Then, there are judgments depending upon theservice conditions of the particular organization.Thus, in Vice chairman and Managing Director, APSIDCLtd. Vs. R.Varaprasad reported in 2003-III-LLJ 23 theScheme of the Andhra Pradesh State IrrigationDevelopment Corporation Limited for VRS was underconsideration. The Apex Court held that after theacceptance of VRS, withdrawal of the option was notpermissible, though it may be prior to actualrelieving of the employees.57. In Bank of India Vs. O.P.Swarnakar reportedin (2003) 2 SCC 721 the Punjab National Bank EmployeesVoluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 was underconsideration. In the facts and circumstances of thatcase, the Apex Court held that the employee couldwithdraw his option from the Scheme before the samewas accepted.58. Similarly, in Food Corporation of India Vs.Ramesh Kumar, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 141 theVoluntary Retirement Scheme of the FCI was underconsideration. After considering the provisions ofthe said Scheme the Apex Court held that once an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ employee submits his application for voluntaryretirement, it shall be treated as final, and it isnot open to the employee to withdraw the same. Sameis the view in State Bank of Patiala Vs. RomeshChander Kanoji reported in (2004) 2 SCC 651."But, in the present case, though the petitioner submitted hisapplication seeking voluntary retirement from service from therespondent-Bank, the application submitted by the petitioner was notcomplete in all respects and, therefore, the respondent-Bank askedthe petitioner to furnish more information and, subsequently, withoutfurnishing the entire particulars, the petitioner wanted to withdrawthe said application. In view of that, the respondent-Bank asked thepetitioner to submit fresh application and that has not been done bythe petitioner. Therefore, the question of application of any of theabovesaid judgments also will not arise in this case. 10. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing forthe respondents/bank, when the petitioner has appeared in the exitinterview to finalize his voluntary retirement, he was advised towithdraw his voluntary retirement and on account of changed familycircumstances, he expressed his willingness to report for duty on28.02.2004. But, subsequently, he did not report for duty, eventhough, the petitioner had withdrawn his request for voluntaryretirement. Once again, the petitioner requested, his absence from01.09.2003 to 27.02.2004 be treated as extraordinary leave andsubmitted his letter dated 20.02.2004. Even, when reporting forduty, in the place where he was working, he pressed for hisretirement as stated in letter dated 20.02.2004. In the meanwhile,the petitioner was transferred to a place of his choice atUdhagamandalam vide letter dated 15.03.2004. Therefore, thepetitioner should have known his position, when he moved a writpetition No.8968/2008 before this Court with a prayer to issue adirection to the respondents to accept his application for voluntaryretirement dated 28.08.2003. The respondents/bank has not acceptedhis voluntary retirement and, therefore, the argument of the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents/bank cannottake any disciplinary action, since his application seeking voluntaryretirement is deemed to have been accepted is not sustainable.Further, after the rejection of his application for voluntaryretirement, the petitioner must have understood that when his requestfor voluntary retirement was not legally accepted by the respondents,he should have reported for duty and failure to which report for dutyhas been viewed by respondents-Bank and therefore, the same, cannotbe said to be malafide action on the part of the Bank. Therefore,the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner is not sustainable in law and the ultimate contention ofthe petitioner that no fresh application is required for seekingvoluntary retirement is also not acceptable in law and the blame https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ casted by him on the respondents bank for not releasing the servicebenefits does not merit acceptance. Therefore, this Court finds nomerit in the present writ petition. In result, the writ petition isdismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar/True Copy/Sub Assistant RegistrarrkmTo1.The Deputy Managing Director,State Bank of India,Corporate Centre,Madam Cama road,Mumbai-400 021.2.The General Manager (D&PB),State Bank of India,Local Head Office, Chennai – 600 006.3.The Deputy General Manager,State Bank of India,Zonal Office, Kurinji Complex, Coimbatore.4.The Asst. General Manager,State Bank of India, Fort Main Road, Salem – 636 001.+1 CC to Mr.M.Muthappan Sr.No.15650+1 CC to Mr.K.Sankaran Sr.No.15437 W.P.No.17258 of 2008RL(CO)