Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, L. S. Pirzada, JJ
Karsanbhai Jivabhai Chamar – Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer – Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 456 of 2016|SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2048/1999

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shalin Mehta, Aditi S Raol
For the Respondents: D.G. Chauhan, Ronak D Chauhan, Shruti Dhruve

The doctrine of approbate and reprobate prevents employees from challenging a voluntary retirement if they have accepted and utilized the associated ex-gratia benefits. Accepting such payments validates the retirement and waives the right to contest it, regardless of any earlier attempt to withdraw the retirement application.

Headnote:(A) Employment Law - Voluntary Retirement - Right of Withdrawal - An employee is generally entitled to withdraw an application for voluntary retirement at any time before it attains finality through acceptance, as the jural relationship between the employer and employee continues until such acceptance. (Paras 25, 26, 29)

(B) Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate - Estoppel - An employee who opts for voluntary retirement, accepts the resulting ex-gratia payments, and utilizes such funds is precluded from subsequently challenging the validity of the retirement. Even if the application for retirement was withdrawn prior to acceptance, the act of receiving and utilizing financial benefits constitutes a waiver of the right to contest the retirement. A party cannot be permitted to adopt inconsistent positions by accepting the benefits of a scheme while simultaneously seeking to invalidate the contract from which those benefits were derived. (Paras 30, 32, 42)

Facts of the case:
An employee submitted a formal application for voluntary retirement. Before the employer formally approved this application, the employee sought to withdraw the request. Despite this, the employer proceeded to accept the retirement and disbursed the terminal and ex-gratia benefits. The employee accepted these payments, albeit with a recorded objection, and subsequently initiated legal proceedings to challenge the retirement on the grounds that the initial application had been validly withdrawn.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that although an employee typically possesses the right to withdraw a voluntary retirement application before its acceptance, this right is curtailed by the principle of estoppel. By choosing to accept and utilize the disbursed financial benefits, the employee effectively concluded the contract of retirement. Therefore, the employee is barred from challenging the legality of the release from service after having received the 'golden handshake'.

Issues: Whether an employee who has formally withdrawn an application for voluntary retirement before its acceptance remains entitled to contest the retirement after having accepted and utilized the associated ex-gratia payments under protest.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of approbate and reprobate prohibits a party from asserting inconsistent rights. Once a financial benefit under a voluntary retirement scheme is accepted and utilized, the employment relationship is legally severed. The acceptance of such benefits, even if performed under protest, constitutes conduct that affirms the retirement under the established contractual terms, thereby precluding a subsequent challenge to the validity of the retirement.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual timeline and the procedural history of the voluntary retirement application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 23 , 24)
2. appellant's contention that withdrawal of voluntary retirement before acceptance is legally permissible. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. respondent's argument that accepting retiral benefits constitutes estoppel against challenging the voluntary retirement. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. analysis of precedent regarding the cessation of jural relationship upon acceptance of 'golden handshake' benefits. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
5. application of the principle of no 'approbate and reprobate' despite protest at the time of accepting benefits. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. final confirmation of judgment upholding the dismissal of the appeal. (Para 43 , 44)

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Ms. Aditi Raol for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. D.G. Chauhan for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms Shruti Dhruve for respondent no.3.

2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1865, the original appellant who has expired during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heirs are brought on record, has challenged the order dated 03.03.2016 passed in Special Civil Application No.2048 of 1999 by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition preferred by the appellant is dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1997, the appellant late Karsanbhai Jivabhai Chamar was working as Patalkuva (tube-well) operator with the respondent Gujarat Water Resources Department and had put in more than 20 years of service.

4. It is the case of the appellant that he was orally informed by the respondent authorities that the respondent Board would be ready and willing to sell Patalkuvas (tube wells) to those tube-well operators, who were willing to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and therefore, the appellant made an application dated 09.10.1997 opting for voluntary retirement and requested that the sale price of the tube-well may be deducted from the voluntary retirement entitlements that may accrue to him.

5. It is the case of the appellant that when the appellant came to know that there was no such scheme of selling tube-wells and it was only a ploy designed by the respondent authorities to entice the employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the appellant made applications dated 12.12.1997 and 09.07.1998 to the respondent authorities to withdraw his application dated 09.10.1997 opting for Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

6. It is the case of the appellant that though he had submitted application for withdrawal of his option for voluntary retirement, the respondent authorities by communication dated 2.12.1998 informed the appellant that his application for voluntary retirement has been accepted.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.2048 of 1999 challenging the order dated 2.12.1998. This Court by judgment and order dated 08.04.2009 quashed and set aside the order dated 2.12.1998.

8. Being aggrieved, the respondent authorities preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.18 of 2010 challenging the judgment and order dated 08.04.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 09.07.2015 set aside the judgment dated 08.04.2009 and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration in light of the observations made therein.

9. Learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2016 dismissed the writ petition.

10. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

11. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for the appellants at the outset submitted that it is not in dispute that the application for voluntary retirem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 8152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADBhargav D. Karia, L. S. Pirzada, JJKarsanbhai Jivabhai Chamar – AppellantVersusExecutive Engineer – RespondentLETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 456 of 2016|SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2048/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Bhargav D. Karia, L. S. Pirzada, JJ
Karsanbhai Jivabhai Chamar – Appellant
Versus
Executive Engineer – Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 456 of 2016|SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/2048/1999