... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Writ Petition No.38/2002. Shri Umesh B. Mangueshkar, major of age, resident of Mangueshi, Mardol, Goa. ... Petitioner. Verses 1. The Manager, UCO Bank, Panaji Branch, Panaji, Goa 2. UCO Bank, Head Office UCO Bank, 12, Old Court House Street, Kolkata – 100 001. ... Respondents. Mr. M.S.Sonak, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Singh Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: S.A. BOBDE & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. Dated: 7th July, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per S.A. BOBDE, J.) The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the communications dated 23.1.2001 and ... 2 ... 31.1.2001 by which his application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the respondents for the time being. The salient features of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme were the employees desiring voluntary retirement had to apply in a prescribed form on or after 1.1.2001 but not beyond 31.1.2001. The competent authority to take a decision with regard to the acceptance or rejection of the applications of the employees after the last date of option i.e. 31.01.2001. 2. The petitioner applied on 5.1.2001. On 23.1.2001 the respondent bank accepted the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement and communicated the acceptance of the petitioner's retirement subject to the two conditions which are not relevant. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 31.01.2001 that he will stand relieved from duties of the branch at the close of office hours w.e.f. 31.1.2001. 3. On 16.4.2001 the Bank amended its Voluntary Retirement Scheme and inter-alia permitted employees to withdraw ... 3 ... from options of VRS where decisions of the competent authorities have not been communicated to the employees in any manner. The petitioner withdrew the application of VRS on 31.1.2001 which the Bank has refused to consider. Hence this petition. 4. Mr. Mahesh Sonak, Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's application for VRS cannot be said to have been validly accepted because it was accepted on 23.1.2001, whereas the scheme contemplated the acceptance of such an application after 31.1.2001. Though, it is a fact that the petitioner's application was accepted on or before 31.1.2001, we see no material prejudice which caused to the petitioner thereby. It is not as if the petitioner sought to withdraw it between 23.1.2001 and 31.1.2001 and was informed by the respondent Bank that his voluntary retirement has already been accepted. We therefore reject this contention. 5. It was the next contention of Learned Advocate Mahesh Sonak for the petitioner that by introducing the facility of withdrawal ... 4 ... of the application for voluntary retirement by the amendment of 16.4.2001 the Bank has discriminated between employees whose application had been accepted before that date and those whose application had not been accepted or who applied after the amendment. We see no invidious discrimination. The Bank has simply provided for withdrawal of an application for retirement, if not already accepted. The provision can be invoked by all employees whose application for Retirement have not already been accepted. In view of the matter there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J. R.C. CHAVAN, J. cg/-