1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.395/2003 Ambawa Vs. Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corp.Ltd. & Ors. Date of Judgment : 8.4.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sanjay Mathur, for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Bhandari for Mr. M.R.Singhvi, for the respondents. BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE SAPRE,J.) The decision rendered in this appeal shall also govern disposal of one connected appeal being S.A.W.No.260/2003 because both these appeals arise out of one order and secondly they involve identical points. 2. This is an intra court appeal filed by writ petitioner of Writ Petition No.3650/1998 under Section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against an order dated 11.11.2002 passed by Single Judge in above writ petition. 3. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and in consequence declined to grant him the relief for which the writ petition was filed. So the question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ and in consequence justified in 2 declining to grant relief to writ petitioner. 4. Facts of the case are these. 5. The appellant was working on the post of Helper in the respondents services. He applied for his voluntary retirement pursuant to V.R. Scheme. It was accepted by respondent and accordingly an amount of Rs.1,15,437/- was paid to appellant towards his retiral dues. 6. It is with this background, the appellant complained that since his application seeking voluntary retirement was conditional one and hence it could have been either accepted with the condition mentioned therein or rejected outrightly. It is essentially with this grievance, he filed a writ petition out of which this intra court appeal arises seeking issuance of writ of certiorari and mandamus against the respondents compelling them to accept the appellant's application made for V.R.S. with conditions mentioned therein. As observed supra, it is this writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to filing of this intra court appeal by the writ petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal and in consequence uphold the impugned order. In our view, the Single Judge was right in his reasoning and conclusion while dismissing the writ petition and declining to grant the relief as prayed by writ petitioner in the writ. 8. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondent, the issue involved in this case remains no longer res-integra and is squarely covered against the appellant and in favour of respondent (employer) by the decision of Supreme Court reported in 2003(2) SCC 721 “Bank of India Vs. O.P.Swarnkar”. It is in this decision, their lordship while examining somewhat similar issue relating to V.R. Scheme in the context of the rights of employee and employer, held as under:- 3 “114. However, it is accepted that a group of employees accepted the ex gratia payment. Those who accepted the ex gratia payment or any other benefit under the Scheme, in our considered opinion, could not have resiled therefrom.” 9. Coming now to the facts of this case, it is an admitted fact that appellant (employee) accepted the payment from respondent (employer) towards his retiral dues after submission of his V.R. application. Once the payment towards retiral dues were accepted after submission of voluntary retirement application, then in such event, an employee had no right to raise any grievance in relation to his voluntary retirement. He was estopped from challenging the action of employer taken in relation to his V.R. It is this ground which found favour to learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition and we are in complete agreement with his view. In our opinion, it is in accordance with the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India (supra). 10. In the light of foregoing discussion, no other point need be gone into in this appeal though urgued. In our view, it becomes academic and really do not survive. As a consequence, the appeal is found to be totally devoid of merit. It is accordingly, dismissed. No cost. [Dinesh Maheshwari], J. [A.M. Sapre],J. /tarun/