MAIN POINTS
Option exercised for VRS cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance is communicated.
As per SBI Pension Rules persons opting for voluntary retirement before completing 20 years of service are not entitled to pension.
Concept of promissory estoppels does not apply to promote or condone the breach of law.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Voluntary Retirement Scheme – Respondent opting for voluntary retirement under the scheme – Option accepted on 17.3.2001 with effect from 31.3.2001 – Respondent withdrawing the same on 27.3.2001 – Acceptance of option having been communicated it was not open to respondent to withdraw the same – No infirmity in impugned judgments. (Para 5, 8)
       2002 (2) SLR 716; (2003) 2 SCC 721 – Relied upon
       (b) State Bank of India Employees Pension Rules – Rule 22(i)(a), (b) and (c) – Pension – For an employee to be entitled for pension he should have retired from the bank’s service – Key word is retiring from bank’s service – Covers cases of normal retirement/superannuate – Respondents opting for VRS before attaining age of superannuation and completing 20 years of service – Not withdrawing within stipulated period – Clarificatory order – Employees entitled to pension even if taking voluntary retirement provided they have completed 20 years of service – – Rule 22(i)(a) and (b) not applicable to respondents. (Para 27, 28)
       AIR 1993 SC 1601; (1997) 1 SCC 256; (1998) 8 SCC 30; (2003) 11 SCC 572; (2003) 2 SCC 721; (2006) 3 SCC 708 – Relied upon
       L.P.A. No. 410 of 2002 (Delhi) – Referred
       (c) SBI Pension Rules – Rule 22(i)(c) – Employees going for voluntary retirement and completing of 20 years of service – Entitled to pension. (Para 30)
       (1997) 1 SCC 256 – Relied upon
       (d) Interpretation of statute – Statutory rules – Concept of promissory estoppels – Could not be applicable to promote or condone the breach of law. (Para 30)
       (2005) 12 SCC 508; (2005) 4 SCC 272; (2004) 6 SCC 765; (2005) 3 SCC 636 – Relied upon
       (e) SBI Pension Rules – Rule 22 – Distinction between normal retirement and voluntary retirement – Voluntary retirement is distinct from retirement, and also retirement under Clause 22(i)(b) dwelling on sanction of competent authority and incapacitation of the member – Respondents having length of service less than 20 years – Opting for VRS – Clarificatory order reiterating Rule 22(i)(c) that employees not completing 20 years will not be entitled to pension – Respondents, held, not entitled to pension. (Para 39, 46)
       (2009) 3 SCC 217; (2009) 5 SCC 313; 2014 (8) SCALE 397 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The 1st respondent, M.P. Hallan, an ex-serviceman joined as a clerk on 18.5.1981 in the appellant-Bank. The Indian Banks Association (I.B.A.), after obtaining approval from the Government of India evolved a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S.) and the appellant-Bank adopted the Scheme with certain modifications, despite it having its own Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the existing service conditions meant for its employees to seek voluntary retirement/premature retirement/ resignation. The Scheme, namely, S.B.I. Voluntary Retirement Scheme was adopted by the State Bank of India on 29.12.2000. The Scheme was to remain open during the period 15.1.2001 to 31.1.2001 with the option either to close it early or extend the period, without assigning any reason.
       The 1st respondent submitted his application seeking voluntary retirement and it was accepted on 17.3.2001 with effect from 31.3.2001. On 27.3.2001, the respondent No. 1 submitted an application to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. The said application was declined by the Bank.
       The 1st respondent preferred writ petition.
       The High Court did not find any merit with regard to refusal by the Bank in not accepting the application for withdrawal submitted by the employee.
       The High Court came to hold that the 1st respondent was entitled to pension and leave encashment.
       The question emerging for consideration is whether the respondent- employees are entitled to get pension.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgments cannot be sustained.
       Result:
       Appeals allowed.

Judgment

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3686 of 2007.

2. Having regard to the commonality of controversy in this batch of appeals it was heard together and is disposed of by a singular judgment. For the sake of clarity and convenience, I shall adumbrate the facts from Civil Appeal Nos. 2287-2288 of 2010 and at the appropriate stage refer to the views expressed in other appeals. The 1st respondent, M.P. Hallan, an ex-serviceman joined as a clerk on 18.5.1981 in the appellant-Bank which has been constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The Indian Banks Association (I.B.A.), after obtaining approval from the Government of India evolved a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (V.R.S.) and the appellant-Bank adopted the Scheme with certain modifications, despite it having its own Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the existing service conditions meant for its employees to seek voluntary retirement/premature retirement/resignation. The Scheme, namely, S.B.I. Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’) was adopted by the State Bank of India on 29.12.2000. The Scheme was to remain open during the period 15.1.2001 to 31.1.2001 with the option either to close it early or extend the period, without assigning any reason.

3. After adoption of the Scheme, the Deputy Managing Director, the competent authority, issued a Circular No. HRD/CDO/VRS/1 on 29.12.2000 clarifying certain aspects of the Scheme. Another Circular being No. HRD/CDO/VRS/5 was issued on 10.1.2001. On 11.01.2001, the said Circular was brought to the notice of all the Branches/offices of all the Circles, including Chandigarh Circle.

4. As per the Scheme, the applications for voluntary retirement under the Scheme were to be submitted during the period i.e. 15.1.2001 to 31.1.2001. The 1st respondent submitted his application seeking voluntary retirement and it was accepted on 17.3.2001 with effect from 31.3.2001. On 27.3.2001, the respondent No. 1 submitted an application to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. The said application was declined by the Bank on 18.4.2001 stating that the date for withdrawal of application had already expired on 15.2.2001. It is apt to note that here the respondent wrote a letter on 12.4.2001 claiming pension under the Pension Fund Rules, 1995 in terms of State Bank of India Employees Pension Rules (for short ‘the Rules’). The claim of the 1st respondent for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement and grant of pension and leave encashment was refused by the Bank on 4.7.2001. Being grieved by the aforesaid refusal and declination of the prayer, the 1st respondent preferred writ petition being CWP No. 14325 of 2001.

5. The Writ Court took note of the fact there was acceptance of the voluntary retirement on 17.3.2001 with a stipulation that the employee would be relieved from his duties at the close of business hours on 31.3.2001. The Division Bench referred to the decision in Mohinder Pal Singh v. Punjab and Sind Bank and others, 2002 (2) SLR 716 and the decision of this Court in Bank of India and others v. O.P. Swarankar etc., (2003) 2 SCC 721 and after reproducing the directions of from Swarankar’s case came to hold as follows:-

“In view of the aforesaid finding, the moment a decision is taken by the Bank, the jural relationship of employer and employee stood terminated. The petitioner has admittedly sought to withdraw his offer to seek voluntary retirement after the acceptance was conveyed to the petitioner. Mere fact that the date of voluntary retirement was fixed as 31.03.2001, is wholly inconsequential as employer and employee relationship has already come to an end with the communication of acceptance. It was only the procedural part under which the petitioner continued to work till 31.03.2001.”

In the ultimate analysis, the High Court did not find any merit with regar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 188

Cases Referred (11)