cliggff/ @ BEFORE HenWJv HIGH COURT er aim-I‘TISGARE AT BILAspuR (w) . petitioner of In&ta . particulars of the petitioner :- As given in the cau3e title. w.p. j§l48 20m / : DARGGA SINGH. aged about 5s years, 3/9 shri Harihar Singh, 40643 A.M. (mod Deptt. utilitieS, Zone No. Hin&stan steeIWet-ks Consuction Liwitem' 1mm - Bbilai, Tah. 5e matt. wRG (as). R/o - P-NOO matter No. 10A Street - 32, Sector—5' Bhilai - magar rah. & visa. wRG (09). VERwS . : (1) Hmwwm smEmbRKs wmsmcuon LmImD : mraug :- Dy. Manager (perS)A. Hsw." nhilai Unit. Tah. s: mstt. mm (c9). Assistant General Manager (pet-Sonnel) mnduStan Steelwrks ConStmction Deparment; Ca-Ordinate PerSonnel Department, KOLKA$ 706—622. 9(2) nueibn unaer Article {gl/224 of the consatuuon Q3Q/ Gontd. ¢/0.2 . W gé / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITIGN NO. 3248 OF 2003 {iafoga Singh Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Canstruction Limited and Another Present :- Shn' VG. Tamaskar, counsel for T116 petitionsr. Shri RS. Koshy with Shri Vinod Deshmukh and Shri Amish Pandey, counsel f0r the mspond611t$. , f O R D E R (Dated 13‘ Eecembe: 2995) 37%“: / 1% Pet Fakhruddin, J Heard. 2. By this petition under Article 226/227 of the. Constitution of India The petitioner prays for quashing of A11116X111‘E~Pj3 dated 1-11-2002 an Annoxuro-P/4 dated 21—11-2002 and further that the payment be paid for 27 months and reinstated in service with full back wages and consequential reliefs. 3. The petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 18- 10—2002 (Annexure-Ri 1) under the scheme‘of 1/ “Revised Voluntary Retirement Scheme” dated 7-10-2002. Aeoonding to the Scheme the willing empioyees were required to submit their applications by 21-10—2002 and the Unit Personnel Department was required to send the same to the Corporation Ofnee; Kolkatta on or before 28—10-2002 alongwith the recommendation of the Unit Head. The application of the \ petitioner duly recommended was sent to Head Oiiice, Kolkatta \ \ l \ \ z t)a 011 23-10—2002. Thereafwr thc pstitioner submittsd an applicaiion on 28-10—2002, which was received in tha Personnei Department, Bhilai on 30-10—2002 Where the petitioner added eertajn conditions to his earlier application. Since conditional voiuntary retirement is not entertained and the unit had aheady recommended for acceptance of the petitioner’s voluntary retirement application and having send the same to Head Oiiice, Kolkata, the conditional applg‘éa’ition of the petitioner was returned to him on the same day. The voluntary retirement application of the petitioner was accepted by the Corporate Onice wef. 3041-2002 and the petitioner was relieved on that date. 4. The petitioner tiled the petition mainly on the ground that he had right to Withdraw his application for voluntary retirement befom it is accepted, H o. The respondents denied the claim of the petitioner and contended that since the petitioner had accepted the retiral 5 i beneiits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme amounting to ,Rs,14,94:293=66 pending this petition. The petitioner is not entitled for any reiief. The respondents have tiled Annexure- R/ 2 showing the details of the amount paid. It is further stated ) that an amount of Rs.14,871/- was also paid towards diderence of CPF. So far as balance amount is concerned, the respondents an: stated in their return as under z “That since the petitioner has not vacated the mmpcmy’3 énarter inspi‘te of receiving an amount cf about fpcteen tats the company has withheld a meager amcunt which shall be paid to the petitioner t/ immediately 0n his vacating the quarter @ a er adjusting the rant and other dues which me peiitr'omer is suppase to pay far the occupaiicn 0f the said quarter of the company.” _ 6. Where an émployee after taking voluntaly mtiremen‘t Withdraws Vor accepts or ufih'zec‘l a part of the amount of voiuntanj retirement with the knowledge that it was The part of fhe VRS benefits, in Such circumstances he is not entitled for the relief ’7, ,.;x)" we, Jé \\ In the case of Puniab Nationai Bank vs. Virender Kiimar Gael and Others reported in (2004; 2 SCC 193 the Supreme Court held that having accepted the benefit under the Scheme by withdrawal and utilization thereof, they are not permitted to approbate and reprobate. 8. In the case of Puniab & Sind Bank and Another vs. S. Ranveer Sing}: Bawa and another reported in 12004) 4 SCC #84, which was a case relating to voluntary retirement, the applicant filed an application for‘withdrawal of option for VRS. The Supreme Court held that though optee withdrew his option for VRS dining currency thereof, but Without any, ‘ objection, he received monetary benefits under VRS and‘ utilized the same. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that in such a situation the principle of estoppel as discussed in 0.1? Swamakar ease, (2003) 2 SCC 721 shall be applicable. It was also held that optee could not resile from VRS. 9. Shri Tamaskar, Ieanmd counsel appearing for petitioner submits that ths amount was Withdrawn by the petitioner during pendency of the petition as the same was required for sustenance. 10. A bare perusai of para 4 of the judgment rendered in the case of Punjab & Sind Bank and Another (Supra) goes to K show that one of the arguments advanced was to taggn‘ect- that at the highest, it was receipt of payment under protest. In this connection, reliance was ptaced on the fact of pentiency of the writ petition in the High Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court repealeci the contention. Para 5 of the aforesaid judgment is reievant and quoted below : “In the (use of Bank of India v. O.P. Swainakm' this Couit obsen:ed that estoppel is based upon the acceptance and retention of benefits) by one having knowledge or notice of the benefits from a mntract or a transaction The doctrine of estoppet is a branch of the rate agafmz assumption of inconsistentpositions. One who knowingly accepts the benefit of a. contract is estopped from denying the ‘ binding effect on him of such contract Wits mle has to be applied to do equity. It was aecordingly heid that those optees who knowingiy received the payments and uiit‘izexi them were not emitted to withdraw from VRS. In the case ofPunjab National Bank v. Virendm. {umar Goal the appticant Bank submitted that some of the optees having accepted the benefits under VKS cannot be permitted to withdraw therefrom, In that matter, several review petitions were fiied and in some of those review petitions, it was fond that the optees were aware of the credits in their accounts and they had even withdrawn the amounts deposited and had utilized the same and consequentiy in such oases, this Court did i not pennit ihe optees to illithdraw from. ‘ V \\L: VRS. To the same effect is the order passed by ffu's Caurt in the case 0f Bank @ of Iiidia v, Pale Ram Dlmm'm In $18 fight 0f the above judgments! we have t0 consider 1he facts of the present case.” i1. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, material on record and in View of the 1aw iaid’ down by the Supreme Court, 110 case 1's made out fer quashing of Annexure~Pf3 dated 1-11-2003 85 Annexure-P/4 dated 21-11—2002. *{7 3 12. At this stage, learned counsei appearing for the petitioner plays that a direction may be given ‘to the respondents for releasing the balance voluntaiji ietirement dues to the petitioner. 13. Learned counsei appearing for the respondents submits that whatever balance amount is thele the same would be paid to the netitioner as the same is withheld because the. company’s accommodation has not been vacated. 14. So far as this aspect is concerned, the parties should settle the account as per law. It is made clear that if 'any grievance remains, it is open to the parties to pursue they , 1, tag matter in accordance with law. 15. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. :‘égk— 7 sar- Fakhruddin lyJudge i I / Gowri " ‘ i