NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus RAGHUVIR SINGH NARANG & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 25-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

" 
[2010) 4 S.C.R. 299 
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
RAGHUVIR SINGH NARANG & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3295 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2010* 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
General Insurance (Rationalization of Pay Scales and c 
Other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) 
Amendment Scheme 2003: 
Special Voluntary Retirement Package - Para 5, Clauses 
(3), (4) and (5) - Employees opting for the Scheme - Later 
withdrawing the option - Employer, accepting the offer, 
D 
relieved the employees - HELD: Where the voluntary 
retirement is governed by a contractual scheme, as 
contrasted from a statutory scheme, the principle of contract 
relating to offer and acceptance will apply and consequently 
the letter of voluntary retirement will be considered as an offer E 
by the employee and therefore any time before its acceptance, · 
the employee could withdraw the offer - But where the 
voluntary retirement is under a statutory scheme which 
categorically bars the employee from withdrawing the option 
once exercised, the terms of the statutory scheme will prevail 
F 
oiler the general principles of contract - In the instant case, 
the Special Voluntary Retirement Package being a part of the 
Amendment Scheme 2003 framed by the Central 
Government in exercise of the powers u/s. 17 A of the General 
Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act 1972, is a delegated G 
legislation and statutory in character - The validity of the said 
statutory scheme has been upheld by this Court* (with 
reference to other provisions of the Act) - Consequently, the 
*. 
Judgment recd.on 8.4.2010. 
299 
H 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A provisions of the Scheme will prevail over the provisions of 
Contract Act or any other Jaw or any principle of contract, and 
having regard to the binding nature of the scheme, the 
employees, upon exercising the option, cannot withdraw from 
the same -
Paragraph 5(4) of the Special Voluntary 
B Retirement Package categorically states that a Development 
Officer shall not be eligible to withdraw the option once made 
for the Special Voluntary Retirement Package - Thus, the 
general principle of contract that an offer could be withdrawn 
any time before its acceptance stands excluded - Clauses 
c (3) and (5) of Para 5 deal with the question as to whether the 
retirement, in pursuance of option exercised by the employee, 
will come into effect without acceptance by the employer -
These clauses have no bearing on the issue whether the 
employee can withdraw from the exercise of option and cannot 
0 be interpreted as giving an .option to the employee to withdraw 
the option once exercised -Principles laid down in the 
decision in Swamakar** - Explained - General Insurance 
Business (Nationalisation) Act 1972 - s. 17-A - Delegated 
Legislation - Contract. [para 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12] 
E 
Bairam Gupta vs. 
Union of India 1987 SCR 1173 = 
F 
1987 (Supp) SCC 228; Punjab National Bank vs. P.K. Mitta/ 
1989 (1) SCR 612 = 1989 Supp (2) SCC 175; Union of India 
vs. Wg.Comdr. T. Parlhasarathy 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 531 = 
2001 (1) sec 158, relied on. 
*National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. General Insurance 
Development Officers Association 2008 (5) SCR 1087 = 2008 
(5) SCC 472; Kishan Prakash Sharma v. Union of India 2001 
(5) SCC 212; and Union of India vs. Gopal Chandra Misra 
G 1978 (3) SCR 12 = 1978 (2) SCC 301, referred to. 
**Bank of India vs. Swaranakar & Ors. 2002 (5) Suppl. 
SCR 438 = (2003) 2 SCC 721, explained. 
Case Law Reference: 
H 
2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 438 
referred to 
para 4 
NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAGHUVIR 
301 
SINGH NARANG & ANR. 
2008 (5 ) SCR 1087 
relied on 
para 6 
2001 (5) sec 212 
relied on 
para 6 
1978 (3) SCR 12 
referred to 
para 7.1 
1987 SCR 1173 
relied on 
para 7.2 
1989 (1) SCR 612 
relied on 
para 7.3 
2000 (4) Suppl. 
relied on 
para 7.4 
SCR 531 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
3295 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.8.2003 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Jabalpur, Bench at Indore in Writ Petition 
A 
B 
c 
No. 880 of 2003. 
D 
Jaideep Gupta, Dinesh Mathur, Nishant Menon, Saurabh 
Jain, Dr. Ramesh Chandra Mishra for the Appellant. 
R. Santhan Krishanan, Praveen Pandey, D. Mahesh Babu 
for the Respondents. 
E 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. The respondents were working 
F 
as Develop.ment Officers under the appellant - New India 
Assurance Co. Ltd. Section 17A of the Gener
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.