TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered on 17.12.2002 in batches of Civil Appeals. At the outset, we make it clear, that this Bench is not sitting on appeal over the judgment rendered by this Court on 17.12.2002. Factual Matrix leading to the filing of the present petitions is, therefore, obviated. Before we advert further, we may at this stage, notice the operative directions rendered in the judgment sought to be reviewed/clarified, strictly relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present applications. This Court inter alia held that the request of an employee seeking voluntarily retirement would not take effect until and unless it was accepted in writing by the competent authority and, therefore, this Court upheld the right of the employee to withdraw his optio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in relation to ten writ petitions which were filed by the employees for a direction upon the Bank that the benefits under the Scheme be paid to them are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration thereof afresh on merits and in accordance with law. In these applications, we are concerned with direction Nos. 1. 2 and 3. In the backdrop of the directions aforesaid, we now proceed to examine the present applications. Review Petition No. 53 of 2003 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 896 of 2002 has been filed by the Punjab National Bank. The ground taken therein is that respondent No.1, Virender Kumar Goel, has accepted the benefits under the VRS and, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be. To substantiate the contention, the applicant has submitted a photocopy of respondent's bank account No.27980 (Annexure R-1). It clearly appears from Annexure R-1 that a part of the retirement benefit was deposited in the respondent's bank account on 12.1.2001 and on 15.1.2001 he had withdrawn Rs. three lakhs. Again on 28.2.3001 he had withdrawn Rs. fifty thousand. This fact, however, was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of the hearing. However, the fact remains that the incumbent had accepted the benefits under the scheme and utilisation thereof would squarely be covered by direction No.1 as noticed above. Therefore, the judgment dated 17.12.2002 is reviewed to the extent that the appeal arising out of the j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. It is further contended that the applicant did not operate the account thereafter. He has neither withdrawn the amount nor utilised the amount, unilaterally deposited in his account. To substantiate his contention the applicant has annexed photocopy of the account No.5654 (Annexure R- 3). A perusal of the account would reveal that after 26.3.2001 the applicant has not operated his bank account. This fact is not denied by the bank. I.A.No.3 The applicant is Mohinder Pal Singh, an employee of the bank. He applied for the benefit of the scheme on 1.12.2000. On 27.12.2000 he made an application for withdrawal of his offer for VRS. The withdrawal application was filed before the acceptance of the offer for VRS by the bank authority. The gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mukul Rohtagi learned ASG submits that applying the principle of 'No Work No Pay', back wages should not be allowed to them on their reinstatement. We are unable to accept this contention. The applicants were out of their jobs for no fault of theirs. Even otherwise, party in breach of contract can hardly seek for any equitable relief. I.A.NOS. 1-22 These applications have been filed by the State Bank of Patiala for clarification/directions. The ground taken in these applications is that the State Bank of Patiala is not a nationalised bank. It is hundred per cent a subsidiary of the State Bank of India. The VRS scheme floated by the State Bank of Patiala is in para-materia with the scheme floated by the State Bank of India. This Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, albeit compelling financial constraints. I.A.No.15 has been filed by an employee of the bank for clarification/modification of our order dated 17.12.2002. In para 6 of the application, the applicant admitted that he had withdrawn and utilised the benefit of the scheme credited in his account. As noticed in our judgment, having accepted the benefit under the scheme by withdrawing and utilisation thereof they are not permitted to approbate and reprobate. The net result is: (a) Review Petition No. 53 of 2003 is allowed but the costs of the respondent shall be borne by the applicant. (b) I.A.Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of 2003 are allowed. (c) I.A.Nos. 1-22 of 2003 are allowed. (d) I.A.Nos.14 and 15 of 2003 are dismissed. Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
