The competent authority has absolute discretion to accept or reject voluntary retirement requests under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, and estoppel applies when an individual accepts an order and then challenges it.

1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash an order passed by the first respondent dated 10.03.2001, by which, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement from service of the respondent bank, and for a direction to the respondents to pay monetary benefits to the petitioner applicable under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2000, as per circular dated 16.11.2000.

2. Some factual background would be necessary before we approach the controversy in issue. The petitioner was employed as a chief officer in the respondent bank and was serving in Calcutta during 2000. The bank issued a circular on 16.11.2000, announcing the UCO Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'VRS 2000'). It is to be noted that under the Pension Regulation, 1995, of the respondent Bank, there was a provision for voluntary retirement. The petitioner submitted his application on 19.02.2001, requesting to be retired voluntarily under the VRS 2000. According to the petitioner, the application for voluntary retirement has to be considered by the competent authority on the basis of 'First cum First Served' and the petitioner claimed that he was the 9th applicant under the scheme and though, this scheme stated that it is on first cum first served basis, the respondent ignored the same and rejected the petitioner's application on grounds, which were not contemplated under the scheme. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application for voluntary retirement under the UCO Bank Employees Pension Regulation, 1995, and the said application was accepted and he was voluntarily retired from service on 10.07.2001. The petitioner after retirement has challenged the order of rejection, dated 10.03.2001, rejecting his application under the VRS 2000.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily questioned the correctness of the impugned order on four grounds. Firstly by contending that the order of rejection dated 10.03.2001 is contrary to terms of the VRS 2000 and First cum First Served Rule was violated and as per the scheme, there is no discretion vested with the authority for refusing to accept the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement. Secondly, it was contended that it has been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner's request could not be considered, since he has not completed one year of service in scale IV. This according to the petitioner is not a condition precedent under the scheme, therefore, the order of rejection is unsustainable. Thirdly, it is submitted that under the scheme, the competent authority to approve the proposal, is the Government of India and therefore, even for rejection, the approval from the Government is necessary and the order passed by the first respondent is without jurisdiction. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that there has been discrimination in the manner in which the VRS 2000 was implemented and there was gross discrimination and the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition pointed out four instances and alleged that the terms of the scheme were violated.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent bank by relying upon the counter affidavit submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has already voluntarily retired from service under the UCO Bank Employees Pension Regulation, 1995 and relieved from the services of the bank with effect from 10.07.2001 and after his retirement cannot question the earlier order of rejection under the VRS 2000. It is further contended that under the scheme, there is absolute discretion vested with the respondent bank and the competent authority to reject the request is the Chairman and Managing Director and the order of rejection was passed by the competent authority and there is no error. It is further submitted that after the VRS 2000 was introduced, 4966 applications for voluntary retirement was received and therefore, the respond