ORDER

ARUIT PASAYAT, J.- In this appeal, Bank of India, a nationalised bank, and its functionaries have questioned correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court inter alia holding that the C appellants' action purporting to accept the prayer for being covered by the Voluntarily Retirement Scheme (in short "VRS" or the Scheme) was not in order.

2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:

The respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the employee") joined the services of the Bank in 1974. In May 2000 the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, (Banking Division) vide their letter dated 22-5-2000 advised all nationalised banks to carry out detailed manpower planning in order to adopt measures to have optimum human resources at various levels in keeping with the business strategies and requirements of each bank, keeping in view the economic reforms set in motion in 1990. In August 2000, a committee was constituted by the Government which placed before it two schemes. One of the schemes suggested was called the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. After getting no objection from the Government for placing the Scheme before the respective Boards of Directors for adopting and implementing the Scheme, the Indian Banks' Association circulated a letter dated 31-8-2000 to all the banks vide which the banks were familiarised with the salient features of the Scheme. On 1-11-2000, Appellant 1 Bank floated the Scheme which was approved by its Board of Directors. The Scheme was introduced and was called the "Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000". The Scheme was open from 15-11-2000 and continued up to December 2004 for employees who sought voluntary retirement. The respondent employee sought voluntary retirement by submitting an application on 17-11-2000. On 20-11-2000 the respondent employee prayed f for withdrawal of the same. About a month thereafter Appellant 1 Bank wrote to the respondent intimating that his application for voluntary retirement was under consideration and the decision of the competent authority would be conveyed as soon as the same is taken. On 9-1-2001, the respondent employee wrote a letter to the Zonal Office of the Bank indicating that he had already withdrawn the letter seeking coverage by the Scheme on 20-11-2000. A writ petition was filed by the respondent employee before the Bombay High Court which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 897 of 2001 in April 2001. On 19-4-2001 the respondent employee's application to be covered under the Scheme was 'accepted by Appellant 1 Bank, he was relieved from the services and ex gratia compensation as well as leave encashment amounts were credited to Savings Bank Account No. 9420 of the respondent employee. Certain withdrawals and/or adjustments were made out of the amounts deposited. According to Appellant 1 Bank, the respondent employee by his letter dated 19-4-2001 acknowledged the receipt of the ex gratia compensation and leave encashment amount and requested for settlement of his terminal dues.

3. By the impugned judgment dated 26-4-2001 the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pronounced its final judgment/order in a matter involving an identical Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the Punjab National Bank in Jai Singh Chauhan v. Punjab National Bank'. Following its earlier judgment, by the impugned judgment, the Division Bench held that Appellant 1 Bank was not justified in treating the respondent employee to be covered by the Scheme and directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Punjab National Bank and the other banks whose cases were decided by the High Courts approached this Court. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Bank of India v. O. P. Swarnakar considered the scope and ambit of the Scheme and certain directions were given as to in which cases the employees concerned were to be treated to be covered by the Scheme and/or relief that can be granted.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel