Back
2014 Supreme(Bom) 1368
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NARESH H.PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
Smt. Urmila Chandrakant Gaikwad - Petitioner
Versus
Chairman and Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 5720 OF 2012
Decided On : July 10, 2014
Mr. A.M.Joshi a/w Mr.V.K.Bodhare, Advocate for petitioner and
Mr. Lancy D'Souza a/w Mr. V.M.Parkar, Advocate for respondent 3.
Headnote:Bank of Baroda Employees (Voluntary Retirement) Scheme, 2001 - Clauses 6 and 8 - Voluntary retirement. - Held, deemed acceptance of an application for voluntary retirement cannot be claimed by employee unless provided by Rules or Scheme. It is clear that an application for VRS is not deemed to be allowed unless the competent authority conveys its acceptance in writing to the concerned employee. Any request of an employee seeking voluntary retirement, through an application made for the said purpose, is to be either accepted or rejected. The decision in this regard has to be communicated to the concerned applicant. In the light of the case law cited above, an acceptance of VRS application is neither automatic nor is it a deeming fiction unless provided in the Rules or the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The deeming fiction necessarily is a creation of law or a statute. Unless so provided by the Rules or in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, an applicant cannot claim deemed acceptance.
(Per Ravindra V. Ghuge,J.) :-
1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective sides at length.
2. Rule.
3. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
4. The petitioner is the widow of the deceased Chandrakant Gaikwad (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), who was an employee of the Respondent Bank namely bank of Baroda. He was appointed in the service of the Respondent Bank on 7 October 1970. It is undisputed that he was a permanent employee of the bank. His last posting was as MM–II Manager in the Sadashiv Peth Branch at Pune. His last drawn gross salary was Rs. 21,240 per month.
5. The Respondent Bank vide circular dated 14th of December 2000, declared a voluntary retirement scheme which was termed as the Bank of Baroda Employees (Voluntary Retirement) Scheme- 2001, (hereinafter referred to as the scheme). As per the eligibility criteria of the said scheme, the deceased was eligible to apply for seeking benefits flowing therefrom. The respondents do not dispute this position.
6. As per clause 6 of the said scheme, the competent authority was empowered to intimate the applicant candidates as regards the acceptance or rejection of their application. On rejection, an aggrieved employee had the right to prefer an appeal. Clause 8 of the said scheme entitled an applicant to withdraw the application before 14th of February 2001.
7. It is undisputed that the deceased had made an application on 18th of January 2001. It is also not disputed that the deceased did not withdraw his application on or before 14th February 2001. The petitioner therefore contends that the said application ought to have been allowed by the respondents. The deceased passed away on 10th of March 2001 on account of a cardiac arrest. Decision by the respondents on his application was not conveyed to the deceased before his unfortunate demise.
8. The petitioner further contends that the respondents were under an obligation to accept the application filed by the deceased since he had not withdrawn the same on or before 14th February 2001. Grievances is that the application was kept pending for quite sometime and finally by a communication dated 11th June 2001, the respondents informed the petitioner that the said application was not considered. It was stated by the respondents in the said communication that the Respondent Bank had a scheme for recruitment of dependents of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds. Copy of the said scheme was supplied to the petitioner.
9. By letter dated 21st of July 2007, the petitioner made an application stating therein that she had made a request in February 2002 seeking recruitment on compassionate grounds which was rejected after one year and nine months in December 2003. She further requested that the Respondent Bank which was celebrating its centenary year, may consider the case of the petitioner for monetary assistance, sympathetically and on humanitarian grounds. By its communication dated 11th January 2008, the Respondent Bank informed the petitioner that her request for financial relief under the scheme could not be accepted since the net income of the family exceeded 60% of the net salary of the deceased. It was also informed that the rejection of her request made earlier was communicated to her in 2003.
10. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 12th of August 2002 in Writ Petition No. 34717 of 2001 in the matter of R Jyothi Vs. General Manager, Dena Bank and others. Reliance is also placed on the order of the Division bench of of this Court, dated 8th July 2009 in Writ Petition No. 663 of 2002 in the matter of Darayus N S Postwala and another versus Central Bank of India and another. Reliance is also placed upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Manjushree Pathak v. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others – (2007) 7 SCC 390).
11. The petitioner has therefore prayed that the res
