HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITIONS NO.10380 & 17098 OF 2004 Dated: 16.12.2010 Between: 1. N. Narayana Swamy and others ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P. State Handloom Weaves Co-operative Society Limited rep., by its Vice Chairman and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITIONS NO.10380 & 17098 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER: These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in accepting the application for VRS and relieving the petitioners without paying the promised amount as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service forthwith. The relief of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is one and the same and therefore, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The 3rd petitioner in WP No.17098 of 2004 and petitioners 1 and 3 in WP No.10380 of 2004 have accepted the benefits under the VRS consequent to their acceptance of the applications by the employer for retirement under the VRS and relieved them from service. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the writ petition in respect of the said writ petitioners and therefore, the writ petitions are dismissed as not pressed in so far as the 3rd petitioner in W.P.No:17078 of 2004 and writ petitioners-1 and 3 in W.P.No:10380 of 2004 are concerned. The facts which are not in dispute in brief are as follows: The petitioners were the employees of the 1st respondent-society viz., A.P. State Handloom Weaves Cooperative Society Limited. They were working in the APCO sales emporium. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 22.3.2001 with regard to organization restructure of public enterprises in the State of A.P. Pursuant to the same, the Government issued letter dated 18.8.2000 permitting the 1st respondent to implement the Voluntary Retirement Scheme with its own funds available with the organization. The 1st respondent issued a circular dated 23.8.2000 giving guidelines with regard to the A.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society Limited Employees Voluntary retirement scheme, 1998. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has again issued a D.O. letter on 4.4.2002 and thereafter the person-in-charge has passed a resolution dated 10.4.2002 with regard to voluntary retirement scheme 2002 and the same was circulated by the 1st respondent vide its circular dated 4.6.2002. Pursuant to the circular, all the petitioners opted for voluntary retirement and the same was accepted by the 1st respondent and they were relieved from duty on 28.2.2003. Though the petitioners’ applications for voluntary retirement have been accepted on 16.1.2003 and were relieved from duty, the benefits which have been promised under the scheme have not been released to them nor they were reinstated into service. Therefore, the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 3.8.2004 stating that they were not paid the benefits under the scheme and therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement. As there was no response, the petitioners filed writ petition seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in accepting the applications of the petitioners under VRS and relieving them without paying the promised amounts as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to reinstate them into service. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that after admission of the writ petition, the respondents finally released the amounts towards the benefits under the VRS scheme and sought to be paid to the petitioners. But, the petitioners have refused to accept the same as the writ petition is pending on the file of this Court seeking for reinstatement. On behalf of the respondents, counter-affidavit has been filed stating that pursuant to the introduction of the scheme in the 1st respondent-organization, the petitioners have opted for the benefits under the scheme and the respondent-organization accepted their applications on 16.1.2003 and 31.3.2003 and accordingly, they were retired from service and consequently, they were relieved from service and that the 1st respondent has acted as per the scheme contemplated by the 1st respondent corporation issued in Circular Ref.No:Admn.11/93/2nd VRS 2002(2)AE/CO, dated 4.6.2002. It is also stated that as per clause (h) of the A.P.S.H.W.C.S Ltd Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002, (for short, the scheme) contemplated the procedure and general conditions. Clause h of the said conditions contemplates that all the amounts payable under the scheme shall be settled within 10 days from the date of receipt of funds from Government on claims submitted for release for Voluntary Retirement under this Scheme by APCO and clause ‘c’ of the Scheme contemplates that an employee retired voluntary under the scheme shall not be eligible for reemployment in the Apex Society. Further the amounts will be settled only after receipt of funds from the Government and the petitioners accepted the terms of the scheme 2002 and submitted their VRS applications and accordingly, they were retired. The 1st respondent forwarded the applications of the eligible candidates including the petitioners to the Government for arrangement of funds and accordingly, the Government released the funds to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent after verifying the case of the petitioners and several other eligible employees according to their entitlement issued DDs to the petitioners on 12.10.2004. Therefore, the 1st respondent on receipt of funds from the Government and immediately after verification of the cases, settled and paid the VRS benefits to the petitioners and the other eligible candidates, who retired under the VRS scheme. It is stated that the 1st respondent in compliance of the guidelines framed under the scheme soon after receipt of funds from the Government settled and send VRS benefits to all the retired employees in order to settle their claims. But the petitioners have not received the same. Therefore, there is no violation on the part of the respondent-organization. Hence, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that VRS scheme in the 1st respondent organization has been implemented and it is a beneficial scheme and the petitioners applied for voluntary retirement under VRS by losing their remaining service, with the pond hope that they will get the benefits under the scheme. But even after 11 months after their retirement, they were not paid the benefits under the scheme in spite of their legal notice and after waiting for a considerable time, they have filed the present writ petitions. It is further contended that in spite of the legal notice got issued by the petitioners to the 1st respondent-organization requesting to reinstate them into service, there was no response and it amounts to arbitrariness. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that under the scheme, it is contemplated that when the applications of the petitioners are accepted under the scheme, on the very same day, the 1st respondent was supposed to pay the benefits under the scheme. But though their applications were accepted on 16.1.2003 and retired from service on 28.2.2003, they were not paid the benefits and apart from that, they were sought to be paid only after filing the writ petition (Date of filing the writ petition:22.6.2004). Therefore, the same is nothing but arbitrariness on the part of the 1st respondent. It is also submitted that when their applications were accepted and relieved from the service, they have forfeited the right of employment and thereby they have foregone the monetary benefits towards their salaries for no fault on their part and therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment reported in Bank of India Vs. O.P. Swarnakar[1] wherein it is held that, 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. 115. The scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right derived by the concerned employees, therefore, could be waived. The employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand. 119. In American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edition. Volume 28, 1966, pages 677-680 it is stated : "Estoppel by the acceptance of benefits : Estoppel is frequently based upon the acceptance and retention, by one having knowledge or notice of the facts, of benefits from a transaction, contract, instrument, regulation which he might have rejected or contested. This doctrine is obviously a branch of the rule against assuming inconsistent positions. As a general principle, one who knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance. This rule has to be applied to do equity and must not be applied in such a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience." The learned Counsel further relied upon the judgment rendered in Bank of India Vs. Pale Ram Dhania[2], wherein it is held that, “A Bench of three-Judges of this Court in Review Petition (Civil) No. 53/2003 in Civil Appeal No. 896/2002 (Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel and others) and connected matters decided on 21-1-2004, has held that where an employee who sought voluntary retirement and subsequently wrote for its withdrawal, but has withdrawn the amount of retiral benefits as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is not entitled for the withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. It is not disputed that in the present case the respondent herein withdrew the amount of retiral benefits on 25th January, 2001.” While relying upon the above judgments, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled for reinstatement into service. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the stand taken by the 1st respondent in the counter and submitted that the 1st respondent had followed the guidelines framed under the scheme. It is further contended that when once the petitioners opted for voluntary retirement under the VRS scheme and their applications were accepted and consequently retired and relieved from service, they are not entitled for reemployment in the respondent-organization. Therefore, the claim of reinstatement into service does not arise. He submitted that as per the clause which was specified in the guidelines issued in that regard, it is clearly contemplated that all the amounts payable shall be settled within 10 days from the date of receipt of funds from the Government on claims submitted for release for voluntary retirement under this scheme by APCO and consequent to release of funds from the Government, the petitioners were issued DDs without any further delay on the part of the 1st respondent on 2.10.2004. But, some of the writ petitioners in the writ petition have accepted the retirement benefits and some of them have not accepted the same. Therefore, there is no arbitrariness or undue delay on the part of the 1st respondent in implementing the scheme. At this stage, it is relevant to go through the guidelines as contemplated under the scheme in Ref.No.Admn.II/1/93/2nd VRS 2002(2)/AE/CO/2007, dated 4.6.2002, which reads as under: Since the petitioners fulfilled the conditions and eligibility criteria as contemplated under the scheme, their applications were accepted under the scheme and accordingly, they were retired and relieved from the service. It is relevant to go through the condition “c” of the scheme, which reads as under: “An employee retired Voluntary under the scheme shall not be eligible for re-employment the Apex Society.” In view of the condition, when once an employee availed the benefit under the Scheme, he is not entitled for any re-employment in the respondent- organization and therefore, the question of reinstatement into service does not arise. Further, condition No.’h’ under the head of procedure and general conditions of the scheme, goes to show that “ All the amounts payable under the scheme shall be settled within 10 days from the date of receipt of funds from the Government on claims submitted for release for Voluntary Retirement under this scheme by APCO.” In view of the said clause, learned Standing Counsel submitted that consequent to the accepting the applications of the petitioners under the VRS scheme and their retirement and relieve from the service their applications were forwarded to the Government for release of funds and soon after receipt of funds from the Government, immediately necessary amounts were paid to the petitioners by way of DDs and that the petitioners have refused to receive the same and therefore, there is no lapse on the part of the respondents. He also submitted that when once the amounts were paid under the VRS scheme soon after receipt of funds from the Government, nothing is hidden by the 1st respondent with regard to the implementation of the conditions. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of the 1st respondent nor any arbitrariness as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. As per condition-h of the scheme, the delay or latches cannot be attributed to the 1st respondent in payment of the amounts. As far as the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, it is a case where the petitioners therein were made to retire under the scheme consequent to the acceptance of their applications opting for retirement under the scheme and subsequently, they wanted to withdraw their applications from opting for retirement under the scheme and the said request was refused by the management and questioning the same, the petitioners therein approached the Court seeking for a declaration that not permitting the petitioners from withdrawing their applications opting for V.R.S scheme is illegal and arbitrary and in this regard, the Apex Court held that when once the employer has accepted the applications of the petitioners under the scheme, it is not open for them to withdraw the applications, having received the benefits under the scheme and therefore, their contention for withdrawal was negatived. In the above decision, the petitioners therein having received the benefits under the scheme, have approached the Court for withdrawal of the application for voluntary retirement. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioners that due to the delay in payment of the benefits under the scheme, they have lost their remaining service and benefits and therefore, they may be permitted to withdraw their applications for voluntary retirement. In this regard, as already stated, clause-c of the scheme does not permit the reinstatement after retiring voluntarily under the scheme and at the same time, clause-h clearly contemplates to settle the claims within 10 days from the date of receipt of funds from the Government on claims submitted for release for voluntary retirement. In this regard, it is the contention of the learned standing counsel that as and when the Government considered for release of the funds, D.Ds were prepared for the amounts under the scheme and sent to all the retired employees and the petitioners have refused to receive the same and therefore, no latches can be attributed against the 1st respondent. In this background of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners have not been paid the benefits under the scheme, they are entitled for reinstatement in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, cannot be countenanced in the light of the observation of the Apex Court that, “As a general principle, one who knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance.” In the present facts and circumstances of the case coupled with clause-c of the scheme, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners are not entitled for reinstatement and therefore, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and thereby, the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Dated: 16.12.2010 gurc. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NOS.10380 & 17098 of 2004 Dated: 16.12.2010 [1] 2003(2) SCC 721 [2] 2004(9) SCC 36