TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts giving rise to the dispute lie within narrow compass. Appellant is a nationalised bank. On 28.10.2000, in order to down size the strength of its staff, the appellant floated the voluntary retirement scheme (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as VRS ). The scheme was to commence with effect from 1.12.2000 and it was to remain in operation up to 31.12.2000. On 6.12.2000, respondent no.1, Ranveer Singh Bawa, opted for VRS. On 22.12.2000, respondent no.1 requested that he be allowed to withdraw his option. On 23.12.2000, the scheme stood modified. On 30.12.2000 and 17.1.2001, the said respondent wrote reminders and requested that he be permitted to withdraw his option. However, in view of clause 10.4 of the scheme, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yees who have accepted the payments/benefits under the scheme cannot approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to withdraw. When the appeal came up for hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant on facts that the respondent no.1 herein had received and accepted payments/benefits under the scheme and consequently, he was not entitled to withdraw therefrom. In this connection, reliance was placed on the averments in the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant on 28.2.2004 in I.A. No.1 of 2003 filed in the present civil appeal. It was urged that the said respondent had two savings bank accounts no.4775 and 4777, in which the bank credited salaries, notice period salary as well as leave encashment benefits under the scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant bank and consequently, the receipts of payments cannot constitute waiver or acquiescence on the part of the respondent. At the highest, it was receipt of payment under protest. In this connection, reliance was placed on the fact of pendency of the writ petition in the High Court. In the case of Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar (supra), this Court observed that estoppel is based upon the acceptance and retention of benefits, by one having knowledge or notice of the benefits from a contract or a transaction. The doctrine of estoppel is a branch of the rule against assumption of inconsistent positions. One who knowingly accepts the benefit of a contract is estopped from denying the binding effect on him of such contract. This rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the counter affidavit dated 28.2.2004: 3. That the account statement submitted along with the additional affidavit at pages 23-24 relates to Savings Bank Account No.4775 maintained by the respondent. A perusal of the same would show that on 27.12.2000 salary to the tune of ₹ 15,154.00 was credited to his account. Subsequently, on 25.1.2001 another credit entry amounting to ₹ 14,600.42p was made on account of salary. On 29.1.2001, a credit entry amounting to ₹ 23,548.59 on account of notice period salary as applicable under Voluntary Retirement Scheme was made. 4. That thereafter on 1.2.2001 the respondent himself transferred a sum of ₹ 60,000/- in the said account and on that very day he adjusted his car loa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 1,42,406.40 p. was credited in this account on 26.3.2001. The respondent made a FDR to the tune of ₹ 1,42,406.40 p. on 31.3.2001 for a period of three years which is still lying with him and is due only on 31.3.2004. From the averments herein, it is clear that respondent no.1 had two savings bank accounts no.4775 and 4777. He had withdrawn his option on 22.12.2000 and yet without any objection he receives three credits in his account on 27.12.2000, 25.01.2001 and 29.01.2001 on account of salary (including notice pay). Thereafter, he repays his car loan; invests ₹ 30,000/- in PPF and ₹ 1,42,406.40 in fixed deposit for three years, which is a long term investment. Therefore the principles of estoppel extensively di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
