IMPORTANT POINT
Request of an employee seeking voluntarily retirement would not take effect until and unless it was accepted in writing by the competent authority and the right of the employee to withdraw his option from voluntary retirement before the same was accepted has been upheld.

JUDGMENT

Sema, J.-Parties are heard.

2. In all these applications, the applicants sought to review/clarify modify the judgment and order of this Court rendered on 17.12.2002 in batches of Civil Appeals.

3. 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.

4. 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 option from voluntary retirement before the same was accepted.

5. This Court further held in paragraphs 114 and 115 of the judgment as under:-

"114. However, it is accepted that a group of employees accepted the ex-gratia payment. Those who accepted the ex-gratia payment or any other benefit under the Scheme, in our considered opinion, could not have resiled therefrom.

115. The Scheme is contractual in nature. The contractual right derived by the employees concerned, therefore, could be waived. The employees concerned having accepted a part of the benefit could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand. (Emphasis supplied)

Finally, in paragraph 130 of the judgment this Court issued the following directions:-

1. The appeals preferred by the nationalised banks arising from the High Courts are dismissed except the cases where the employees concerned have accepted a part of the benefit under the Scheme; However, in respect of such of the employees who despite acceptance of a part of the retirement benefit under the Scheme had continued under the orders of the High Court and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation, this order shall not apply. (Emphasis supplied)

2. The appeals filed by the State Bank of India are allowed.

3. The appeals arising from the judgments of the Uttaranchal High Court are allowed and the judgments of the said High Court are set aside.

4. The appeals arising from 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 matter are remitted to the High Court for consideration thereof afresh on merits and in accordance with law.

6. In these applications, we are concerned with direction Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

7. In the backdrop of the directions aforesaid, we now proceed to examine the present applications.

8. 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, therefore, the appeal is filed by him against the judgment and order of Uttaranchal High Court ought to have been dismissed, instead of allowed, as contained in direction No. 3.

9. The respondent herein had filed counter to the application. It is argued that the Review Petition is not maintainable as the applicant had failed to show that there was an error apparent on record or that there was discovery of some new or important matter which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time of the hearing of the special leave petition. It is further argued that the respondent had applied for VRS on 17.11.2000, which was operative w.e.f. 1.11.2000 to 30.11.2000. Thereafter, on 27.11.2000 the respondent had submitted an applica