IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12485 of 2003 1. Shankar Prasad, S/o- Late Ramautar Prasad, Resident of village- Hardiya, P.O.-Hardiya, P.S.-Barhaniya, District-Siwan, presently post in Retail Marketing Division, Patna of National Textile Corporation. 2. Hemant Kumar, S/o-Late Tara Prasad Sahu, Resident of village-Runni, P.S.-Runni, District-Sitamarhi, presently posted in Retail Marketing Division, Patna of National Textile Corporation, Patna. -Petitioners. VERSUS 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Textile, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Textile Corporation Limited, C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi. 3. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Textile Corporation Limited, West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa WBA Ltd., 7-Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700013. 4. The General Manager (Personnel), National Textile Corporation Limited, 9-Bourbon Road, Kolkata-700001. 5. The Divisional Manager, National Textile Corporation Limited, Retail Marketing Division, S.P. Verma Road, Patna-800001. -Respondents. ----------- 05 25.07.2009 Petitioners were employee under the National Textile Corporation Limited, a Government of India undertaking, which has as usual become sick. As matter of restructuring a voluntary retirement scheme was framed by the Management and offered to the employees. Employees had the option of accepting the voluntary retirement scheme or voluntary separation scheme. Which schemes were modified from time to time. Under those schemes petitioners applied for voluntary retirement. Petitioners applied for voluntary retirement on 29th November 2002. After some time on 14th July 2003 they intimated withdrawal of his application to the authorities. Notwithstanding that on 15.09.2003 petitioners’ application for voluntary retirement were accepted and they were paid various monetary amounts under the said schemes, which he accepted under protest. Petitioners challenge the - 2 - acceptance and pray that they be declared to be a regular employee not voluntary retired. Contention of the petitioners is simple and straightway. He submits that the acceptance can only be there if there is subsisting offer. Petitioners’ offer was withdrawn by the petitioners much before and as such there was no offer left to be accepted. In my view, this is a sound principle of law relating to contract. Mr. K.N. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation states that the facts are otherwise. He submits that in the form of application itself which in law is the offer of the petitioners there is a clear statement and undertaking by the petitioners that he shall not at all withdraw the voluntary resignation that being so as a part of his offer for voluntary retirement scheme. They have undertaken not to withdraw their offer. Thus, any subsequent act of petitioners in seeking to withdraw the offer could not be considered. In other words, it is submitted that the offer was irrevocable offer that being so the acceptance was valid in law. Having heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In my view, the contention as raised by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the Corporation must be accepted. Mr. Mukund Jee, learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly accepted that the applications that were filed by petitioners did contain a stipulation that the offer would not be liable to be withdrawn. Thus, it is rightly submitted that it was an - 3 - irrevocable offer. If it was an irrevocable offer then no exception can be taken to the right of the Corporation in accepting the offer and deeming the petitioners to be voluntarily retired that being so the acceptance of voluntary retirement scheme cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)