Case: Indian Overseas Bank and Ors Vs. Rattan Singh

Kurian Joseph, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Appellants are before this Court aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 21.02.2014. The case pertains to the application of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short VRS) by the Respondent. The stand taken by the Division Bench is that since the Respondent withdrew the offer for VRS prior to the communication of the acceptance, there is no VRS in the eye of law and, therefore, the High Court set aside the termination of the Respondent on VRS and ordered reinstatement with all consequential benefits.3. Prima facie, we find it difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the High Court. The scheme of VRS varies from institution to institution. In the case of the Appellants it is specifically stipulated that once an officer/employee exercises the option it will not be open for him/her to withdraw the request made for voluntary retirement under the scheme after having exercised such option. The option once exercised is irrevocable.4. Be that as it may, when the matter was being heard, we sought the assistance of Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned senior Counsel, as to whether an amicable settlement of the dispute leaving the question of law open can be arrived at, since it is a case of only one employee, in whose favour there is a judgment of the High Court. Mr. Kailash Vasudev, learned senior Counsel, has made certain suggestions. Mr. Gourab Benerji, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that being a financial institution, it may not be possible for the Bank to accept the suggestions by way of a volunteered settlement from the Bank.5. After having heard Mr. D.K. Garg, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, we are of the view that having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, this is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, particularly in view of the fact that the Respondent has been a beneficiary of the judgment of the High Court and he is the only person involved in this dispute.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]3. Prima facie, we find it difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the High Court. The scheme of VRS varies from institution to institution. In the case of the Appellants it is specifically stipulated that once an officer/employee exercises the option it will not be open for him/her to withdraw the request made for voluntary retirement under the scheme after having exercised such option. The option once exercised is irrevocable5. After having heard Mr. D.K. Garg, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, we are of the view that having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, this is a fit case to invoke our jurisdiction Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, particularly in view of the fact that the Respondent has been a beneficiary of the judgment of the High Court and he is the only person involved in this dispute.