IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.2021 of 2010 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 8002 of 2003 Date of decision : March 21, 2011 J.S. Kohli .....Petitioner VERSUS National Insurance Company Limited & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Swaran Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. DR Bansal, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The Government has issued a Gazette notification on 2.1.2003, whereby some service conditions of the Development Officers were altered. All the Development Officers were given two options either to take Voluntary Retirement Package or to serve as Development Officer (Administration). When the scheme was circulated the petitioner submitted his option for retirement package in the prescribed proforma on 26.2.2003. In the meantime, Civil Writ petition No.3204 of 2003 was filed by the Association of Development Officers and the Court had issued directions to maintain the status quo in regard to the said notification. As per the petitioner, no options were accepted till 1.5.2003, on which date he submitted his option to opt for post of the Development Officer (Admn). Without considering his request, C.M. No.2021 of 2010 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 8002 of 2003 -2- impugned fax message was issued on 8.5.2003 directing the retirement of the petitioner under Voluntary Retirement Package. He has, accordingly, filed this writ petition to challenge this order. In response to the notice, reply is filed and the claim made by the petitioner is contested. As per the respondents, para No. 5(4) of the Scheme clearly provides that the Development Officer shall not be eligible to withdraw the option for special Voluntary Retirement Package. Since the petitioner has submitted his option for special Retirement Package on 26.2.2003 and thus, he could not withdraw this, it is pleaded that no case is made out for calling interference in the writ petition. My attention is drawn to New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Raghuvir Singh Narang & another, (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 335, wherein vires of this very scheme was challenged, but have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This precise question has been dealt with by the Court as can be seen from the following contention noted in the judgment:- “8. The contentions urged give rise to the question whether a Development Officer who exercises the option under the Amendment Scheme of 2003, seeking the special voluntary retirement package, could withdraw the same before its acceptance.” Dealing with para 5(4) of the special Voluntary Retirement Package, which provides that the Development Officer shall not be eligible to withdraw the option once made for the Special C.M. No.2021 of 2010 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 8002 of 2003 -3- Voluntary Retirement Package, the Court has held:- “15. In this case the statutory scheme contains a specific provision that a Development Officer shall not be eligible to withdraw the option once made for the special voluntary retirement package. In view of the said statutory provision, the general principle of contract that an offer could be withdrawn any time before its acceptance stands excluded.” The Court has, accordingly, held that the scheme is statutory in character and the provisions of the scheme will prevail over the provisions of the Contract Act or any other law or any principle of contract. It is further observed that having regard to the binding nature of the scheme, the employee upon exercising the option, cannot withdraw from the same. In my view, the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Raghuvir Singh Narang's case (supra). Once the petitioner has submitted his option for Voluntary Retirement Package, he has no option to withdraw the same. The writ petition is, accordingly without any merit and is dismissed. March 21, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE