IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2569 OF 2001 Ulka Mahadeo Kulkarni .....Petitioner V/s. Bank of India and Ors. ..... Respondents. Mr.P.M.Mokashi, for the petitioner. Ms.Prachi Mhatre i/by M/s.M.S.Bodhanwalla & Co., for the respondents. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : JUNE 11, 2009 P.C. 1. The petitioner had initially joined the services of the respondent Bank in the year 1974. In November 2000, the respondent Bank introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its employees. On introduction of Voluntary Retirement Scheme by the respondent Bank, the petitioner submitted her application for the said scheme on 15-11-2000. Subsequently, the petitioner addressed a letter to the respondent Bank to withdraw the application for VRS Scheme. However, such request was rejected by the respondent Bank on the ground that once an application is preferred for voluntary retirement under the Scheme, the petitioner had no right to withdraw the same. It is the aforesaid decision of the respondent Bank which is impugned in this petition. 2. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the amount which has been disbursed by the respondent Bank towards the VRS scheme has already 2 been withdrawn by the petitioner. It is true as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till the VRS application is acted upon by the respondent bank, the petitioner can withdraw the same before it is accepted. However, in view of the subsequent event i.e. the petitioner had withdrawn the amount deposited by the bank during the pendency of the petition, is one of the factor which is required to be considered before granting any relief to the petitioner. If the petitioner had subsequently not withdrawn the amount after the application of the VRS, naturally the petitioner was entitled to withdraw the application. Since the petitioner has withdrawn the amount deposited by the bank under the Scheme during the pendency of the petition, in our view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as she is estopped by her own conduct by accepting the money on her own volition during the pendency of this petition. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments which has been pointed to us and an indubitable fact that the petitioner had accepted the amount under the VRS Scheme, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Considering the said aspect, the petition is rejected with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)