CORAMTHE HON’BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICEandTHE HON’BLE MR v. State Bank of India

2. State Bank of India, rep. by its General Manager (D & PB), Local Head Office, Circle Top House, 21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. 3. State Bank of India, rep. by its Circle Development Officer, Personnel & HR Department, Local Head Office, Circle Top House, 21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ..Respondents 1 to 3 in all the W.Ps. 4. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Nandambakkam, Chennai. ..4th respondent in W.P.18272/2001 5. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager, Erode Branch. ..4th respondent in W.P.24202/20016. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Tirupur Bazar Branch ..4th respondent in W.P.24203/20017. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Udhagamandalam. ..4th respondent in W.P.24204/20018. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager, Pudukottai. ..4th respondent in W.P.24205/20019. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Coonoor...4th respondent in W.P.24206/200110.State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Arasaradi Branch...4th respondent in W.P.24207/200111. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Sriperumbudur. ..4th respondent in W.P.18273/2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, BHEL Project Branch, M.R.Puram, Ranipet – 632 406...4th respondent in W.P.18274/2001 13. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager, Kovilpatti – 628 501...4th respondent in W.P.18278/2001 14. State Bank of India, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, 22, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ..4th respondent in W.P.18279/2001 15. State Bank of India, rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Office Administration Dept., Local Head Office, Circle Top House, 21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ..4th respondent in W.P.18280/200116. State Bank of India, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Chennai Main Branch, 22, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ..4th respondent in W.P.18304/2001 17. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager, 16, Gandhi Road, Kancheepuram – 631 501...4th respondent in W.P.18313/2001 18. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager, Purasawalkam Branch, Chennai...4th respondent in W.P.18335/2001 19. State Bank of India, rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Commercial Branch, Walajapet – 632 513. ..4th respondent in W.P.18347/2001 20. State Bank of India, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Zonal Officer, Madurai...4th respondent in W.P.19180/2001 21. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager, Kodambakkam Branch, Chennai – 600 024...4th respondent in W.P.19181/2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22. State Bank of India, rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Local Head Office, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ..4th respondent in W.P.19182/2001 23. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Lalgudi Branch...4th respondent in W.P.20818/2001 24. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Kattur ADB..4th respondent in W.P.20819/2001 25. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager, Tuticorin Branch, Tuticorin...4th respondent in W.P.20820/2001 26. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, C.T.Complex, Madurai..4th respondent in W.P.20821/2001 27. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Tirumangalam Branch..4th respondent in W.P.20822/2001 28. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, CT Complex, Madurai..4th respondent in W.P.20823/2001 29. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Tirumangalam Branch..4th respondent in W.P.20824/2001 30. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief Manager, Dharapuram...4th respondent in W.P.20825/2001 31. State Bank of India, rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Tiruchirapalli...4th respondent in W.P.20826/2001 32. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Vilathikulam Branch...4th respondent in W.P.20827/2001 33. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Tirumangalam Branch...4th respondent in W.P.20828/2001 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

34. State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Udhagamandalam...4th respondent in W.P.24250/2001 35. State Bank of India, rep. by its Deputy General Manager, Industrial Finance Branch, 103, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ..4th respondent in W.P.18364/2001 36. State Bank of India, rep. by its Assistant General Manager, SBI Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. ..4th respondent in W.P.18365/200137. State Bank of India, rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Pollachi...4th respondent in W.P.19530/2001 38. State Bank of India, rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Tiruchirapalli Main Branch, Trichy. ..4th respondent in W.P.752/2002 PRAYER: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for theentire records from the respondents and quash the order passed by the 2ndrespondent vide his order 1) dated 29.3.2001 per SBI/VRS/212(M), 212(K),212(H), 212(B), 212D, 212F (in WP.Nos.18272 to 18274 of 2001, 18313,18335, 19181 of 2001)2) dated 24.3.2001 Per/SBI/VRS/172(F) dated 30.3.2001 Per/SBI/VRS/226dt. 24.3.01 Per/SBI/VRS/172(C), 168(A), 172(H), 174(P),174(F), 186(C), 184(B), 186(A), 170(A), 174(G), 180(A), 168(C), dt. 24.3.01 168(D), 174(B),174(M), 174(K), 174(O), 174(L), 172(G), 168(F), 174(A), 174(J), 172(B),170(F), 172(A), 172(J), and 168(G) (in WP.Nos.24202 to 24207, 18278,18279, 18280, 18304, 18347, 19180, 19182, 20818, 20819, 20820, 20821,20822, 20823, 20824, 20825, 20826, 20827, 20828, 24250, 18364, 18365,19530 of 2001 and 752 of 2002 respectively and permit the petitioner toretire under SBI VRS Scheme as MMGS-II and restore all the terminal andother benefits as envisaged in the scheme and consequently direct the 2ndrespondent to pay the retirement benefits due to the petitioner as per thesaid scheme.For Petitioners in all the :: Mr.K.Chandru, Senior CounselWrit Petitions For Mr.S.Jayakumar.For Respondents in all the:: Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, Writ PetitionsSenior Counsel For Mr.B.Rajendran. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ J U D G M E N TTHE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE This writ petition and the connected writ petitions are disposed of bythis common order, since common questions of law and facts are involved.We are treating W.P.No.18272 of 2001 as the leading case. We have heardthe learned counsel for the parties in all these petitions and haveperused the record. 2. The prayer in W.P.No.18272 of 2001 is for a writ of certiorari toquash the impugned order dated 29.03.2001 passed by the 2nd respondent –State Bank of India represented by its General Manager (D& PB), Chennai,and to permit the petitioner therein to retire under the SBI-VRS Scheme asMMGS-II, and to restore all the terminal and other benefits as envisagedin the scheme by directing the 2nd respondent to pay the retirementbenefits to the petitioner as per the said scheme. 3. The State Bank of India came out with a Voluntary Retirement Schemefor its staff known as the SBI VRS Scheme. Through its circular dated02.01.2001 the bank enumerated the conditions for applying for voluntaryretirement. The Scheme was opened on 15.01.2001 and the last date foropting for VRS was fixed as 31.01.2001. The petitioner alleged that heapplied for voluntary retirement under the said Scheme through properchannel well before the last date. 4. In paragraph – 5 of the petitioner’s affidavit, the petitioneralleged that the respondent – bank earlier issued a circular dated25.06.1999 according to which the officers promoted to Scale II witheffect from 01.08.1988 had to complete 2/3 years of rural/semi-urbanservice as a necessary condition for promotion. It is further alleged thatthe said condition was diluted later and it was decided by the bank thatif an officer was unable to complete the mandatory rural/semi-urbanservice, he would be considered for promotion subject to the conditionthat he would complete the required rural assignment immediately after hispromotion or forego his promotion in the event of his failing to completethe required rural service. Petitioner was promoted to Scale II post, andhe alleged that at the time of his promotion there was no condition thathe should complete rural service for his promotion, nor did he give anyundertaking that he will complete the rural posting at any point of time.Hence, in his order of promotion, there was no mention that he shouldcomplete rural posting for the purpose of remaining in the promoted post.At any event he was never offered rural posting till his date of relievingeven though the management has got discretion to post him in any ruralarea. The management posted the petitioner in various branches, which arenot rural and the petitioner accepted all these postings and he worked inthose branches as per the order of the management. 5. In paragraph – 7 of his affidavit, the petitioner alleged that eventhough he was willing to undertake rural posting, the management offeredno such rural post to him. The management also did not stipulate rural https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ posting as a pre-condition for the petitioner’s promotion in the year1989. Since, the petitioner had not given any undertaking, he alleged thatthe bank has no jurisdiction to withdraw his promotion made in 1989. 6. In paragraph – 8 of his affidavit the petitioner alleged that the4th respondent – Branch Manager intimated the petitioner that hisapplication for voluntary retirement under the SBI VRS Scheme had beenaccepted, and that he would be relieved of his duties at the close ofbusiness on 31.03.2001. It is further alleged that surprisingly, within 10days from the date of the abovesaid order, the 2nd respondent vide hisletter dated 29.03.2001, informed the petitioner that he had not completedthe mandatory rural/semi-urban assignment essential for promotion toMiddle Management Grade/Scale II, and hence the bank decided to revert himto the Junior Management Grade/Scale I. On receipt of the aforesaidletters, the petitioner was relieved of his duties on 31.03.2001 afterreverting him to Junior Management Grade Scale – I. Hence, he has allegedthat he had no time to make a representation to the bank while he was inservice. 7. The petitioner further alleged that the order dated 29.03.2001reverting him to Junior Management Grade/Scale – I and retiring him assuch was illegal and violative of the rules. He further alleged that ifthe impugned order dated 29.03.2001 would be given effect to, he would beput to irreparable loss since his total emoluments would get reduceddrastically, as also his terminal benefits. He also alleged that theimpugned order 29.03.2001 is discriminatory, because those officers whohave been promoted along with him and who have to retire during March 2001on superannuation were allowed to retire/resign without any reversion asJunior Management Grade/Scale – I. 8. The petitioner also alleged that his promotion from Scale I toScale II was not subject to any condition, and therefore, withdrawal ofhis promotion on the ground that he had not completed the mandatory ruralservice was arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner further alleged that hecouldn’t be punished for not undergoing rural service when he was notasked to do so at any point of time during his service. The Scheme doesnot discriminate between officers who have completed rural assignment andthose who have not. It is also alleged that no opportunity of hearing wasgiven before passing the impugned order. 9. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent-bank inW.P.No.18272 of 2001, and we have perused the same. 10. In paragraph – 3 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that theGovernment of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs(Banking Division) issued guidelines in terms of which the Boards of therespective banks were required to formulate the eligibility criteria andthe details of the processes to be employed for promotion of officers fromone scale/grade to another, subject to the provisions provided in the saidguidelines. It is further alleged that the said guidelines provided for aminimum of two years service in rural branch for promotion from Junior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Management Grade/Scale I to Middle Management Grade/Scale II. It isalleged that on the basis of the said Government of India guidelines, thebank issued circular dated 22.05.1987, wherein it was stipulated thatrural/semi-urban service would be one of the conditions for promotion toMiddle Management Grade Scale – II and Middle Management Grade Scale IIIwith effect from 01.08.1988. Subsequently, the bank issued anothercircular dated 16.09.1989 in respect of the implementation of theGovernment Policy for Rural and Semi-Urban service by an officer forbecoming eligible for promotion to MMG Scale II and MMG Scale III. Thesaid circular contemplates a letter of undertaking from the officersindicating their willingness to complete the required period ofrural/semi-urban assignment and in the event of their failing to do so toforego promotion. Subsequently, the respondent-bank constituted a jointpromotion committee consisting of the representatives from the bank andthe All India State Bank Officers’ Federation, which examined thepromotion policy and on the basis of the recommendation of the saidcommittee, the executive committee of the Central Board at its meetingheld on 09.02.1991 approved the promotion policy for MMG Scale II and III.The said policy reiterated the mandatory requirement of completion ofrequired period of service in rural/semi-urban branches for promotion toMMG II/MMG III. 11. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that in State Bankof India and Others Vs. Kashinath Kher and Another, 1996 (8) SCC 762 theSupreme Court while granting leave had held that rural/semi-urbanassignment is mandatory for promotion and that too only for ad hocpromotion. Subsequently, on 11.06.1999 the bank issued another circularwith respect to the rural/semi-urban assignment and withdrawal ofpromotion, which has been communicated by the Local Head Office, videCircular CIR/DO/PER/20 dated 25.06.1999. In paragraph – 3 of the saidcircular it was specifically provided that till the officers complete therural/semi-urban assignment, their promotion would be treated as ad hocpromotion. 12. It is alleged in paragraph – 19 of the counter that the competentauthority in terms of the Central Board Memorandum gave certainclarification and the same was communicated by Circular No.HRD/CDO/VRS/2dated 04.01.2001. As per the said circular if an officer, has notcompleted the mandatory rural or semi-urban assignment (either wholly orpartly), his request would be subject to the provisions contained inCircular dated 25.06.1999. Thus, in case of an officer from this categoryapplying for retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme before approvinghis case, his promotion would stand withdrawn in terms of the circulardated 25.06.1999. 13. In paragraph – 20 of the counter it is alleged that the petitionerafter going through the various clauses of the above circular dated25.06.1999 opted for SBI Voluntary Retirement Scheme and submitted hisapplication. It is further alleged that the petitioner was well aware thatif his voluntary retirement was accepted under SBI VRS, his promotion to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MMGS II would be withdrawn, as he had not put in the requisite rural orsemi-urban assignment. 14. Since, the petitioner applied for SBI VRS, he was well aware ofthe terms and conditions of the various circulars/guidelines issued by thebank, and the bank was justified in withdrawing the ad hoc promotion ofthe petitioner for non completion of rural/semi-urban assignment in termsof the provisions of the circulars dated 25.06.1999 and 04.01.2001. 15. It is further alleged that opting for the VRS by the petitioner isa contractual matter between the petitioner and the bank. The bank made aninvitation of offer with certain terms and conditions. The petitionersubmitted an offer, which was duly accepted by the bank, and thepetitioner was allowed to retire in terms of SBI VRS. Hence, it is allegedthat no writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution will lie insuch contractual matters. It is also alleged that the petitioner isestopped from raising any type of controversy with regard to his non-completion of rural assignment and his reversal to JMGS I. 28. In StateBank of Patiala Vs. Romesh Chander Kanoji and Others, 2004 (2) SCC 651 theSupreme Court observed that the VRS is an invitation to offer and not anoffer under the Contract Act. 16. It is alleged in paragraph –25 of the counter affidavit that thepetitioner had withdrawn the ex-gratia amount and other retiral benefitsfrom his accounts settled in his favour, which clearly shows his consent,and completion of the contract. It is further submitted that the action ofthe respondent-bank was legal and justified, in view of the staff circulardated 04.01.2001 which clearly stated that if an officer who had notcompleted the mandatory rural or semi urban assignment (either wholly orpartly) submits an application for retirement under SBI VRS, his requestwould be subject to the provisions contained in the staff circular dated25.06.1999. It is alleged that there was no need to give any opportunityof hearing to the petitioner in the matter. The petitioner had applied forSBI VRS after accepting the terms and conditions laid down in the Schemeand the circular dated 04.01.2001 which clarify the position. It isfurther alleged that the SBI Voluntary Retirement Scheme cannot be treatedas terms and conditions of service. It is a special dispensation andcompletion of rural/semi urban assignment was mandatory. Even in case ofnormal voluntary retirement scheme the promotion would be withdrawn if theofficial retiring voluntarily did not complete the mandatory rural/semi-urban assignment. There was no compulsion on the petitioner to opt forretirement under SBI VRS. The petitioner was not the only individual whosead hoc promotion was withdrawn for non-completion of mandatory ruralassignment and there are several others who had also opted for voluntaryretirement under SBI VRS and whose promotion were withdrawn. 17. For deciding the controversy in this case, it is necessary toadvert to the relevant circulars dated 04.01.2001 and 25.06.1999. Clause –ii of the Circular dated 04.01.2001 states:- “If an officer, who has not completed the mandatory rural orsemi-urban assignment (either wholly or partly), submits an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application for retirement under SBI VRS, his request would besubject to the provisions contained in CircularNo.CIR.D.O.PER:20 dated 25.06.1999. Thus, in case of an officerfrom this category applying for retirement under SBI VRS, beforeapproving his case, his promotions would stand withdrawn.” 18. The Circular dated 25.06.1999 states:- “III – a) If an officer is unable to complete the mandatoryR/SU assignment for any reason attributable to him/her, his/herpromotion will have to be withdrawn and he/she will not bepermitted to officiate in higher grade(s). This withdrawal cango back to two/three grades also i.e., to the grade in which theofficer was when he/she gave the undertaking for completing themandatory assignment. b) An officer, not willing to go for R/SU assignment due tochanged circumstances, will make a request in writing giving thereasons for withdrawal of promotion. In case no request is madein writing by the officer and he/she doesn’t go for R/SUassignment, his/her promotion will be withdrawn as it wassubject to the completion of the R/SU assignment, in terms ofhis/her undertaking. c) The officer can be considered for promotion subsequently witheffect from a prospective date, if otherwise eligible, as perthe Promotion Policy/placement norms in vogue at the materialtime, if he/she completes all the mandatory assignmentsbeforehand. Minimum period for eligibility for consideringhim/her for next promotion will be two years as has been laiddown in the Debarment Policy. d) Although the bank has got a right to do so, as a specialcase, incremental salary, allowances and perquisites may not berecovered from the officers whose promotions have beenwithdrawn. e) Though the bank may accede to officers’ requests and notimmediately transfer them to R/SU branches, subject towithdrawal of their promotion, it may post them at centers otherthan R or SU and, after a period not exceeding 5 years, they canbe posted at any office/branch including a rural or semi-urbanbranch. f) Deferment in posting at R/SU center without withdrawal ofpromotion can be granted only on medical grounds pertaining toself, subject to examination by a competent medical boardconstituted by the Bank. This deferment would be for a periodnot exceeding 6 months. However, in such a case, if the transferorder was issued earlier, and the officer had refused to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complete the assignment at that particular point of time,his/her case would be treated just like other cases. g) If an officer opts for voluntary retirement/resignation, theBank would not permit such retirement/resignation, unless he/sheeither completes the mandatory R/SU assignment or makes arequest in writing to withdraw his/her promotion(s) as he /shecannot complete R/SU assignment and be retired. In case theofficer applies for retirement/resigns, without making a requestin writing for withdrawal of promotion(s), the bank may withdrawhis/her promotion(s) based on the undertaking already given andthereafter permit the officer to retire/resign. h) In case of officers who are likely to reach the age ofsuperannuation in the next two or two and a half years period,it should be ensured that, preferably within a period of 30 daysfrom the approval of this policy, these officers are posted forcompletion of R/SU assignment. If thereafter the officeractually reports there and continues to work at thatbranch/center, till the date of retirement/actual completion ofassignment, he/she would be permitted to retire in the presentgrade otherwise his/her promotion will be withdrawn as in caseof other officers.” 19. Thus, the circular dated 04.01.2001 has clearly stated that theapplication for VRS can be allowed only on the basis of the conditionsmentioned in the circular dated 25.06.1999. Clause (g) of the circulardated 25.06.1999, quoted above, clearly states that if an officer opts forvoluntary retirement scheme, the bank would not permit such retirementunless he/she either completes the mandatory R/SU assignment or makes arequest in writing to withdraw his/her promotion. In case the officerapplies for retirement without making a request in writing for withdrawalof promotion, the bank may withdraw his/her promotion based on theundertaking already given, and thereafter permit the officer to retire. 20. Thus, under clause (g) an officer of the bank can opt forvoluntary retirement only after he completes the mandatory Rural/Semi-Urban assignment or makes a request to withdraw his/her promotion. 21. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that thepetitioner was not given rural/semi-urban posting by the bank and that henever refused such a posting, is hence irrelevant since under clause (g)of the circular dated 25.06.1999, a necessary condition for voluntaryretirement was completion of rural/semi-urban service or withdrawal of thepromotion. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerthat it was no fault of the petitioner that he was not given rural/semi-urban posting is of no help to the petitioner. 22. It may be true that the petitioner never refused rural/semi-urbanassignment and that such assignment was never offered to the petitioner,but in any case, clause (g) of the circular dated 25.06.1999 makes rural https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ service a mandatory requirement for voluntary retirement. The voluntaryretirement scheme is a contractual scheme and the petitioner was under nocompulsion to opt for it. Having opted for it, he is bound by thecirculars dated 25.06.1999 and 04.01.2001. 23. It may be that the petitioner may suffer hardship, but on thataccount we cannot interfere. The petitioner was well aware of thecirculars dated 04.01.2001 and 25.06.1999, and the voluntary retirementwas allowed to him subject to the condition of the provisions contained inthese circulars. 24.The petitioner was promoted to the post of MMGS II after 1988 andhe had to undergo or complete two years of rural posting, as provided inthe binding circulars. The petitioner was well aware that his promotionwas only ad hoc as clarified by the Supreme Court in State Bank of IndiaVs. Kashinath Kher, 1996 (8) SCC 762 (supra). Petitioner was thus wellaware that he had to undergo mandatory rural service if he desires to optfor voluntary retirement scheme, otherwise, he would be reverted to thelower post. 25. As regards the petitioner’s contention that at the time of hispromotion to MMGS II there was no pre-condition attached to the effectthat he had to undergo rural posting, the learned counsel for therespondents submitted that the guidelines of the Government of Indiaissued in the year 1987 and the circular issued by the State Bank of Indiaon 22.05.1987 followed by various other circulars clearly indicate thatthe officers like the petitioner had to under go rural posting. At anyevent this will not help the petitioner in view of Clause (g) of thecircular dated 25.06.1999. 26. As regards the petitioner’s contention that persons similarlyplaced like him were allowed to retire with full benefits and hence therewas discrimination against him, the learned counsel for the respondentssubmitted that seven of those officers had retired on reaching the age ofsuperannuation and they cannot be compared with the persons who opted forvoluntary retirement under the Scheme. At any event, even if the benefitwas given to some other similarly situated persons that was wrongly doneand the petitioner cannot claim that he should also be given the illegalbenefit vide Chandigarh Administration Vs. Jagjit Singh, 1995 (1) SCC 745.Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not apply to illegalities. Weare in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for therespondents. The petitioner is bound by the circulars dated 04.01.2001 and25.06.1999. The SBI VRS involves considerable amounts to be paid as exgratia, besides normal terminal benefits, in case the option is accepted.The amount is not paid for any work done, but paid in lieu of leaving theservice, which is a package deal. Once, the amount is paid, the employeeceases to be under employment, and he cannot agitate for any of his pastrights. The present writ petition was filed six months, after receivingthe voluntary retirement amounts, without any objection, and was thusliable to be dismissed on the ground of laches vide A.K.Bindal Vs. Unionof India, 2003 (5) SCC 163. Also the petitioner accepted the settlement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under the scheme without objection, and hence he cannot approbate andreprobate vide, Bank of India Vs. O.P. Swaranakar, 2003 (2) SCC 721(paragraphs – 114 to 119). 27. In Punjab National Bank Vs. Virender Kumar Goel and Others, 2004(2) SCC 193 (vide paragraphs 10, 11 and 12) the Supreme Court observedthat having accepted the benefits under VRS by withdrawal of the money theapplicants cannot approbate and reprobate. 28. In view of the above, we find no force in these writ petitions,and they are all dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.sm Copy to:- 1. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief General Manager, Local Head Office, Circle Top House, 21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. 2. State Bank of India, rep. by its General Manager (D & PB), Local Head Office, Circle Top House, 21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. 3. State Bank of India, rep. by its Circle Development Officer, Personnel & HR Department, Local Head Office, Circle Top House, 21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. + 1 CC to Mr.S. Jayakumar, Advocate SR NO 19844+ 10 CC to Mr.B. Rajendran, Advocate SR Nos.19819 to 19828 W.P.No.18272 of 2001 & Batch. 26 ..04..2005. bs(co)gp/11.5.