Kapadia, J. - (1.) The question that arises for consideration in this case is - whether respondent who earlier opted for voluntary retirement scheme could be permitted to withdraw therefrom after having received the payments under the scheme
(2.) The 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 appellant did not permit him to opt out from the VRS. Consequently, w.e.f. 29-1-2001, respondent No.1 was relieved from service. Aggrieved, he filed the writ petition in the High Court on 26-3-2001 inter alia seeking resumption of duties without any break in service. On 24-7-2001, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petiton on the ground that the optee is entitled to withdraw his option before its acceptance by the bank. Against the decision of the learned single Judge, the appellant carried the matter in appeal to the Division Bench. By impugned judgment dated 5-9-2001, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. Hence, this civil appeal by special leave petition.
(3.) In the case of Bank of India vs. O. P. Swarnakar reported in [(2003) 2 SCC 721], two questions arose for determination, namely, whether the scheme is an offer, as contended on behalf of the bank or an invitation inviting offers from employees; and secondly, whether the optees having accepted the payments/benefits under the scheme could be permitted to resile therefrom. On the first question, it was held that the said scheme was contractual in nature; that it constituted invitation and not an offer; and that no consideration passed in terms of the scheme so as to constitute an agreement. Under the circumstances, it was held that revocation was possible and effective at any time before acceptance as upto such acceptance no legal obligation existed. On the second question, it was held that those employees who have accepted the payments/benefits under the scheme cannot approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to withdraw.;