1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1730 OF 2001 Milind Pandharinath Behere B 5 Vijaywadi Niwas Co-op. Society, 2nd Floor, L.T.Road, Mulund (E), Mumbai – 400 081. .....Petitioner V/s. 1. Union Bank of India Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. 2. General Manager (Personnel), Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021. 3. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Mulund (W) Branch, Bodke Bhavan, 529, Netaji Subhash Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080. ..... Respondents Mr.P.M.Mokashi, for the petitioner. Mr.M.K.Naik a/w Mr.S.P.Salkar, for the respondents. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : JULY 09, 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.B.Majmudar, J.) : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the condition under Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2000-01 of not permitting an employee to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement once submitted, is illegal and bad in law. It is also prayed that appropriate orders may be passed directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the consequential benefits and the application under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme submitted to the bank may be quashed and set aside. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that before his application was accepted, he had sent a letter to the respondent bank that he intends to withdraw the same, however, he was not permitted to withdraw the same. It is therefore, prayed that since it is now well settled by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India & Ors., V/s. O.P.Swarnakar & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 721, that an applicant could always withdraw his VRS application before it was accepted. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent bank, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has subsequently withdrawn the entire amount paid to him towards the retiral benefits, which he was entitled to as per the VRS and having accepted all the retiral dues from the bank, now he cannot be permitted to say that he should be reinstated in service. In 3 this connection, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bank of India & Ors., V/s. Palo Ram Dhania, 2004(4) L.L.N.5, wherein it has been held that an employee who sought voluntary retirement under the scheme introduced by the bank withdraws his application within three days, but in the meanwhile, he withdraws the benefits deposited in the bank as per the scheme, he would not be entitled to withdraw his application for Voluntary Retirement. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that now the petitioner is not in a position to redeposit the entire amount with the bank, as a substantial amount has been paid to the petitioner on account of the acceptance of his application under VRS scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that there is no question of passing any order of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, now no relief can be granted as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)