HIGH GOUR'T OF CHHATTISGARH T BILASFUP (C G ) @i3 2003 R . L . VISHWAKARMA 50 Shri Shyamlal Vishwakarma gged about 52 years, ? Ex-Cohstruction Assistant Grade-I, Mechanical, Hindustan SteelWbrks Construction Limited, Bhilai - Nagar (c.G.) . R/o Quarter No. 15 B. Street — 30, Sector - 7, Bhilainagar, Tah. & Distt.DURG (C.G.) Ver SuS . l . HINDUSTAN STEELV‘DRKS CONSTRLTC"ION LIMTTED rough —Groun General Manager, f f H.S.C.L. Bhilai Nabar, Tah. & Distt. DURG (C.G.) . emme« ‘ l Assistant Eeneral Manager, Hindustan SteelWorks ConStruction Liwited' Bmlal Nagar, Tah svDistt DURG (cs ) PTITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/22’fOF TEE CONSTITUTION f OF INDIA. / $ h P ii!GH £GURT OF {IHHATTE'gGARf-i : EILA§PEIR WRET PETITIG§ H0. 319 GF 2003 Ri. Vishw-akarnm Vs. Hindustaa Steei Works Eansimctioa Limited an& Fma%her G R § E R gDateé 2nd December 2005) §1GH {EGURT GE‘ CHHATTI$GARH : glLASPUR WRIT PETETIGN NO. 819 OF 2603 R.L. Vishwakarma Vs. i-iindustaii é‘teel Works Cmistruction Limite& and hother ?reseni :— Shn' VJJ 'T‘amaskar, mum-$61 for thc psu‘tioner. Sahli V.V.S. Murthv, Sr. Advocate with Shi‘i Vinoci Deshmukh and Shri Ilemajat Solapurkar, counsal for U16 mspondfsms, O R D E R {Dated 2M Deaember 2005) Pe? Fakhruiddin. J Hazard. 2. B37 thiS petition under Article 2261227 of the Constitution of Iniiia the petimoner prays for quashing of Annexure-Pl 2 dated 7-11—2002 & Annexme-Pl3 dated 16-12-2002 and reinstated in service with full back wages and consequentiai reliefs. 3. The petitioner submitted an appiication for voluntary retirement under the scheme of “Revised Voluntary Retirement Scheme” dated 7-10-2602. According to the Scheme the Willing employees were required to submit their applications by 21-10—2002 and the Unit Personnel Department was required to send the same to the Corporation Oitice, Kolkatta on or before 28—10-2602 alongwith the recommendation of the Unit Head. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application on . 1-1i-2002 wlieie he requested for Withdrawal of his voluntaiy &€. retirement appiieation. Since the voluntaiy reth‘ement appiicaiion 6f ihe pe‘tiiimmr was act‘Eptec‘i by tha Corporate % . 0%ice tim peiitionar’s request for withdrawal of voluntary mtiremmlt applicafion was not accepted. 4. The petiiioxla‘ flied the petition mainly on the gmmui mat he had right to Withdraw his appiicatiml for voluntary retiremmt before it is accepted. 5. The respondents denied the claim of the petitioner emd contended that since the petitioner had accepted the retiral benefite under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme amounting to Rs.11,67,898=24 pending this petition. The petitioner is not entitled for anv reiiet‘, So far as balance amount of Rs.98,813i— is concerned, the respondents are stated that since the petitioner has not vacated the company’s quarter inspite of meeiving an amount of/inore than eleven lacs the company has withheld an amount of Rs.98,8 13/ — which shall be paid to the petitioner immediately on his vacating the quarter after adjusting the rent and other dues which the petitioner is suppose to pay for the occupation of the said quarter of the company. ,~o. Where an employee after taking voluntary retirement withdraws or accepts or utilized a part of the amount of voluntanj retirement with the knowledge that it was the part of the VRS benefits, in such circumstances he is not entitled for the relief. 7. In the case of Punjah Naticmat Bank as. Viremier Kumer Gee: amt others reported in (2004) 2 SCC 193 the ti Suprame Court heki that having acceptEd The balleiit under me Scheme by withdrawal ai1d utih'zation themcf, they are 110i permitted to approbate and reprobate. 8. In the case of Punjab 65 Sind Bank aim Anather vs. S. Raiweer Sinah 3mm and Anather reportee in {2094; 4 SCC 434, which was a case relating to voluntaly retirement, the amaiicant tiled an application for withdrawal of option for VRS, The Supreme Court belt} that though optee withtirew his (It option for VRS during currency thereof; but without any objection, he received monetary benefits under VRS anti utilizeci the same. Under the circumstances: the Supreme Court heid that in such a situation the principle of estoppel as; discusseci in OP. Swamafcar case, (2003) 2 SCC 712i ehali be appiicable. It was also heict that optee couid not resile from '% ‘v’RS. 9. Shri Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner suhinits that the amount was withch‘awn by the pet'tioner during pendency of the petition as the same was requii‘e‘d for sustenance. 1t). A bare perusal of para 4 of the judgment rendered in the case of Punjab & Sind Bank and Another (Supra) goes to show that one of the arguments advanced was to the ehect that at the highest, it was receipt of payment under protest. In this connection, reliance was placed on the fact of pendency of he writ petition in the High Court. Hon’bie Supreme Court t ré‘pealed the contaniion. Para 5 0f the afm‘esaki judgmmlt is Elevant and quota} b€1ow : “In the case of Bank 0f indict v, OP. Swamamr thia Court abaervéd a‘kai esmppel is based ugxm me aaceptance and reieniion of beriefiis, by One having knowledge 0r i‘zozice of the beizejifs from a contraci or a transaciwn The docirine of eszoppei is a branch of zhe mie against assumption of inconsisient posfta'ons. 07w who kilowingiy acwpt3 thé bgnefit of a. coritraci is esiopped fi‘om denying the binding effect on him of auch contract. This mie has to be appiied Ea do equity, It was amordingiy hem that ihose qm‘ees who knowingiy received the paynrzenzs and u§i§ized ihem were not eniiiied to wi'iizco'aw from VRS. In ihe case ofPunjab Haiimml Bank v, Vii'eiidm. Kumw‘ Goal the apylicarzt Bank submiiteci that some of ihe optees having acoepied the benefits under VRS cannot be permitteci to wiihdraw iherefrom, In ihai mat‘cr severai review pezizions were fiied ami in some of iiwse review petiiions, ii waS fond that ihe oyiees were aware of the credits m weir accounts arid mey had even withdrawn the amounts deposite cmd had utiiized the same and consequeniiy in such cases, ihis (301171 did hot permit the opiees to withdraw from. VRS To the same ejfeci is the order passed by this Court in‘the case of Bank of Iridia v, Pale Rain Dhanio. In the ligm of the above judgments, we have $0 consider thefacis of the presem case.” 11?“ Having considered the facts emd circumstances of the case, material on recomi ané in View of ihc law laid down by i116. Supreme Court, 110 case is magic out for quashing of Anncxure-Pf2 dated 7-11~2002 85 A11ncxure-P/3 dated 16-12-2002. 12. At this stage, lemod counsel appearing for the petiticner prays that a ciircction may be given to the 4 \ G0wn' (J. (55”, responiients for r€l€asing tha balaucc voluntaiy retireme dues to the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that Wha‘iever balance amount is there the same would be paid to the petitioner as the sane 1'3 Withheld becauee the company’s accommodation has not been vacated. 14. So far as this aspect i8 concerned, the parties should settle the account as per law. It is made Clear that if ally grievance remains, it is open to the parties to pursue the matter m accordance with law. i5. Subject to the aforesaiti obsewations, the petition stands disposed of. Sdl- Fakhruddin ‘ Judge i¥ oé-Iélzoés