PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ANR. versus S. RANVEER SINGH BAWA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 524 · Decided: 21-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PUNJAB AND SiND BANK AND ANR. 
v. 
S. RANVEER SINGH BA WA AND ANR. 
APRIL 21, 2004 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
C 
Voluntc:ry retirement Scheme-Option-Withdrawal from option after 
receipt of benefit thereunder-Permissibility of-Held_: optee ha\Jing knowingly 
accepted the benefit is estopped from denying the binding effect of the 
Scheme-Hence, cannot resile from the Scheme~Evid(mce Act, I 872-Section 
I I 5-Doctrine of Estoppel, 
D 
Respondent No. 1 opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme. He withdrew 
his option for the Scheme before the cut-off date. Thereafter he received the 
benefits under the Scheme without any o,bjection and also appropriated the 
amounts for his benefit. He was not permitted to opt out of the Scheme and 
was relieved from the service. Respondent filed writ petition. Single Judge 
held that the optee was entitled to withdraw his option befor;e its acceptance 
E by the Bank. Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. 
· 
F 
On appeal to this Court appellant contended that the respondent was 
not entitled to withdraw from the Scheme having received payment under the 
Scheme. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Estoppel is based upon the acceptance and retention ofben~fits, 
by one having knowledge or notice of the benefits from a contract or a 
transaction. The doctrine of estoppel is a branch of the rule against 
G assumption of inconsistent positions. One who knowingly accepts the benefit 
of a contract is estopped from denying the binding effect on him of such 
contract. This rule has to be applied to do equity. (527-C-D) 
H 
1. Respondent having withdrawn his option and yet without any nbjection 
receiving the benefits under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, principles of 
524 
PUNJAB AND SINO BANK v. S.R.S. BAWA [KAPADIA, J.] 
525 
estoppel would apply. His conduct indicates his knowledge about payments in A 
his accounts; that he never objected to such payments and that he had 
• 
appropriated the amounts for his benefit. Therefore, he cannot resile from 
the Scheme. (529-B-C] 
Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar, (20031 2· SCC 721; Punjab National 
Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel and Ors., (20041 2 SCC 193 and Bank of India B 
and Ors. v. Pale Ram Dhania, [20041 9 SCC 36, relied on. 
CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4097 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.2001 of the Delhi High Court C 
in L.P.A.No. 455 of2001 
Jagat Arora, Rajat Arora, Ms. Ritu Arora and Rajiv Nanda for the 
Appellants . 
._,; 
Jayant Bhushan, Mandeep Singh Vinaik and Hardeep Singh Anand for D 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KAPADIA, J. The question that arises for consideration in this case is 
- whether respondent who earlier opt~d for voluntary retirement scheme could E 
be permitted to withdraw therefrom after having received the payments under 
the scheme? 
The facts giving rise to the dispute lie within narrow compass. Appellant 
is a nationalised bank. On 28.10.2000, in order to down size the strength of 
its staff, the appellant floated the voluntary retirement scheme (hereinafter F 
referred to for the sake of brevity as "YRS"). The scheme was to commence 
with effect from 1.12.2000 and it was to rem!lin in operation up to 3 I. I 2.2000. 
On 6.I2.2000, respondent no.I, Ranveer Singh Bawa, opted.for YRS. On 
22. I 2.2000, respondent no. I requested that he be allowed to withdraw his 
option. On 23. I 2.2000, the scheme stood modified. On 30. I 2.2000 and 17 .1.200 I, 
the ·said respondent wrote reminders and requested that he be permitted to 
withdraw his option. However, in view of clause 10.4 of the scheme, the 
appellant did not permit him to opt out from the YRS. Conseq~ently, w.e.f. 
29. I .200 I, respondent no. I was relieved from service. Aggrieved, he filed the 
G 
writ petition in the High Court on 26.3.2001 inter alia seeking resumption of 
duties without any break in service. On 24.7.2001, the learned Single Judge H 
526 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A allowed the writ petition on the ground that the optee is entitled to withdraw 
his option before its aq:eptance by the bank. Against the decision of the 
learned Single Judge, the appellant carried the matter in appeal to the Division 
Bench. By impugned judgment dated 5.9.2001, the Division Bench dismissed 
the Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, this civil appeal by special leave petition. 
B 
In the case of Bank of India v. O.P. Swarn
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.