LexPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK versus VIRENDER KUMAR GOEL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
• •
.\.._ .
v.
VIRENDER KUMAR GOEL AND ORS.
JANUARY 21, 2004
B
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., H.K. SEMA AND S.B. SINHA, JJJ
Service law:
c
Banks-Voluntary Retirement Scheme-Clarification with regard to
directions by Supreme Court in judgment dated 17.12.2002-Clarified that
the phrase "accepted a part of the benefit under the scheme" appearing in
direction no. I in the judgment would include withdra1val of benefit and
utilisation thereof-Unilateral deposit of a part of benefit under the Scheme,
when the spme was neither withdrawn nor utilised by employee, that too after
D withdrawal of application would not be construed as acceptance of the
Scheme-Jn the cases where employees had accepted the scheme by
withdrawing and utilisation of amount, they are not permilled to approbate
.,
and reprobate.
The Supreme Court by its judgment dated 17 .12.2002, while
E disposing of the appeals arising out of disputes between employer Banks
and their employees with regard to Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS),
upheld the right of an employee to withdraw his option for voluntary
retirement before the same was accepted. In the judgment, the Court
issued further directions, inter alia, "(i) appeals preferred by the
F
nationalised banks arising from the judgment of the High Courts are
dismissed except the cases where the employees concerned have accepted
J,.
a part of the benefit under the Scheme; (ii) appeals filed by the State Bank
of India are allowed; and (iii) appeals arising from the judgment of the
Uttaranchal High Court are allowed."
G
Review Petition No. 53 of 2003 was filed by the Punjab National
Bank bringing it to the notice of the Court that the employee concerned
therein had accepted the benefits under the VRS and the appeal filed by
'('
him against the judgment of Uttaranchal High Court ought to have been
dismissed instead of being allowed. I.A. Nos 14-15 seeking clarifications
H
were filed by employees who had withdrawn and utilised the benefit of .
920
i
P.N.B. v. V.K. GOEL
921
the· Scheme credited in their accounts.
A
I.A. Nos. I, 2 and 3 were filed by the employees stating that the
benefits under the Scheme were credited to their accounts, but they did
not operate the accounts after such deposits and therefor it could not be
said that they had accepted part of the benefit in terms of direction no. 1.
I.A. Nos. 1-22 were filed by the State Bank of Patiala stating that the said B
Bank was not a nationalised bank but a hundred percent subsidiary of
State Bank of India; that the VRS floated by the bank was in pari materia
with that of the State Bank of India; and that the appeals of State Bank
of India were allowed but nothing was said about the appeals filed by the
applicant-Bank.
C
Disposing of the petitions, the Court
HELD: I.I. The respondent employee in Review Petition No. 53 of
2003 had withdrawn a part of the benefit under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme. His contention that the bank accepted his request after the period D
cif the Scheme had expired would be of no assistance to him. The fact that
the employee had withdrawn a part of the benefit under the Scheme was
not brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing. However,
the fact remains that the incumbent had accepted the benefits under the
Scheme and utilisation thereof would squarely be covered by direction no. E
I. Therefore, the judgment dated 17.12.2002 is reviewed to the extent that
the appeal arising out of the judgment and order of the Uttaranchal High
Court is dismissed and the judgment of the High Court is upheld.
1924-F; 925-A-CI
l.2. Applicants in I.As. 14 -15 having accepted the benefit under the F
Scheme by withdrawing and utilisation thereof are not permitted to
approbate and reprobate. (927-H)
2. It is clarified that the phrase "accepted a part of the benefit under
the Scheme" appearing the direction no. I in the judgment dated 17.12.2002
would include the withdrawal of the benefit and utilisation thereof. By no G
stretch of imagination, unilateral deposit of a part of benefit under .the
Scheme into, the Bank account, that too after withdrawal of the
application, would construe as to have accepted the part of the benefit
under the Scheme when the same was neither withdrawn nor utilised by
the employee concerned. Accordingly, applicants in I.A. Nos. l, 2 and 3 H
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004] I S.C.R.
A would be reinstated into tlieir postExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.