JUDGMENT
H.R. Panwar, J.
1. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to treat him in service on the post of LPG Operator.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’ hereinafter) working on the post of LPG Operator and was posted at LPG Plant at Kota of the respondent Corporation. A Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short LRS” hereinafter) was floated by the respondents vide Annex. R-1 on 14.7.2004. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent Corporation, seeking voluntary retirement, on 17.7.2004 under VRS with effect from 31.12.2004 vide Annex. 1. The application filed by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement under VRS was accepted by the respondent Corporation vide order Annex. R-2 dated 18.11.2004 and it was conveyed to the petitioner that consequent to the acceptance of his VRS application, the petitioner will be voluntarily retiring from the services of the Corporation w.e.f. close of business on 31.12.2004 and in order to facilitate settlement of final dues expeditiously, the blank forms to be filled and completed by him were also attached and sent to the petitioner and the petitioner was requested to fill the forms and submit the same at the earliest. The petitioner sent a communication dated 23.12.2004 Annex. 2 to the respondents stating therein that on 23.7.2004 he applied for voluntary retirement under VRS and the same has been accepted, however, he has changed his mind and wants to continue in the service, and therefore, sought permission to allow him to remain in service. A communication was sent to the petitioner by the respondents vide Annex. R-3 dated 8.12.2004 informing him that he is a member of Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme (for short ‘the SBF Scheme’ hereinafter) and has opted for VRS scheme offered by HPCL. Consequent of his superannuation, he will cease to be a member of SBF scheme and he was apprised of the options available to him as per the Rules of the SBF scheme; (1) to receive refund of his contributions along with interest as per the rules. The amount is approximately Rs. 1,30,398.88 or (2) to receive 21.33% of his last drawn salary as monthly benefit on his attaining the age of 60 years i.e. his notional date of the retirement. The petitioner was to exercise one of the above two options. Vide Annex. R-4 dated 31.12.2004, in reference to Annex. R-3, the petitioner opted to receive refund of his contributions along with interest. Vide Annex. R-5 dated 23.2.2005 a sum of Rs. 1,32,769.93 was sent to the petitioner by cheque dated 31.1.2005 in view of the option exercised by him for SBF Scheme contribution which the petitioner has received. One Gold coin which was available to the retiring persons on superannuation weighing 25 grams, was also sent to the petitioner and the same was also received by him. Vide Annex. R-8 dated 07.3.2005, the respondents communicated to the petitioner that he has a credit balance of Rs. 5,95,760/- towards Gratuity & Ex Gratia against which a sum of Rs. 7,98,873.43 is recoverable from the petitioner on account of various loans and advances taken by him and after adjusting the payable sum from receivables, Rs. 2,03113.43 is balance for recovery. The petitioner was also informed that he has a credit balance of Rs. 4,13,127/- towards Co. Provident Fund which would be released to him only after receiving/ recovering the said unpaid amount “and in case he is unable to deposit the amount sought to be recovered from him, he was asked to give authorization letter in the prescribed form to recover the amount from his PF balance. The petitioner neither consented for deducting the outstanding loan amount taken by him from the amount payable nor deposited the dues outstanding to him. The communication Annex. R-9 was also sent to the petitioner for the said purpose. However, the petitioner seeks withdrawal of the application filed by him seeking voluntary retirement under the VRS and continuity of service. Hence this writ petition.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project Development India and Anr. , Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project Development India and Anr. , Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Anr. , J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr. , P. Lal v. Union of India and Ors. and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari AwasanSangh Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Meena and Ors. 2006 (1) CDR 512 (Raj.).
5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. SIDC Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Varaprasad and Ors. , Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr. v. S. Ranveer Singh Bavva and Anr. and in Bank of India and Ors. v. Pale Ram Dhania .
6. In Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India and Anr. , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the resignation, inspite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the effective date, though on review petition, this decision came to be reviewed and set aside and subsequently in Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India and Anr. , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
Coming to the case in hand the letter of acceptance was a conditional one inasmuch as though option of the appellant for the voluntary retirement under the scheme was accepted but it was stated that the ‘release memo along with detailed particulars would follow. Before the appellant was actually released from the service, he withdrew his option for voluntary retirement by sending two letters dated August 07, 1997 and September 24, 1997, but there was no response from the respondent. By office memorandum dated 25th September, 1997, the appellant was released from the service and that too from the next day.. It is not disputed that the appellant was paid his salaries etc. till his date of actual release i.e. 26th September 1997, and, therefore, the jural relationship of employee and employer between the appellant and the respondents did not come to an end on the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement and said relationship continued till, 26th September, 1997. The appellant admittedly sent two letters withdrawing his voluntary retirement before his actual date of release from service. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law and the terms of the letter of acceptance, the appellant had locus poenitentiae to withdraw of proposal for voluntary retirement before the relationship of employer and employee came to an end.
7. In Balram Gupta v. Union of India , the appellant therein by letter dated 21.12.1980 sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.3.1981. He was allowed lo retire voluntarily from service prospectively w.e.f. Afternoon of 31.3.1981. In the meantime, on 31.1.1981, the appellant therein withdrew his notice on ground that on account of persistent and personal requests from the staff members he had changed his mind. However, the appellant therein was relieved by order dated 31.3.1981 and in the very order it was mentioned that the appellant’s withdrawal application was considered and was found not acceptable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that-undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken ort the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation had not been accepted: In that case, the resignation from the Government servant was to take effect at a subsequent date prospectively and the withdrawal was long before that date. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that there was no valid reason for withholding the permission by the Govt.
8. In J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr. , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the question whether the appellant therein was entitled to withdraw the voluntary retirement notice of three months submitted by him on 3.10.1989 which was to come into effect from 31.1.1990, the proposal was accepted by the authorities on 2.11.1989, however, before 31.1.1990, the appellant therein by letter dated 11.12.1989 sought to withdraw the voluntary retirement proposal which was not accepted by the respondents vide communication dated 26.12.1989, held that it is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice is moved by an employee and get accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached, the employee has locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement.
9. In P. Lal v. Union of India and Ors. , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before effective date. The effective date would necessarily be on the date on which the retirement takes effect.
10. In Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Awasan Sangh Ltd. v. Ram Prasad Meena and Ors. 2006 (1) CDR 512 (Raj.), Division Bench of this Court held that it was open for the respondent therein to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement on 10.8.1994, therefore, the impugned order retiring him w.e.f. 31.10.1994 was not in accordance with law. In that case, the respondent therein was a Class-IV employee. By an application dated 21.7.1994 he sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.10.1994. The voluntary retirement proposal submitted by the employee vide letter dated 21.7.1994 came to be accepted vide order dated 4.8.1994. The employee moved for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement application before its effective date on 10.8.1994 but before this date, the voluntary retirement proposal was accepted by the employer on 4.8.1994.
11. In Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors. v. Mohinder Pal Singh and Ors. 2005 AIR SCW 6182, the appellant therein withdrew his offer of voluntary retirement before the same was accepted. He even filed a writ petition when he came to know that the bank has unilaterally accepted offers of certain employees despite the same having been withdrawn and terminated their services with immediate effect. After the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in O.P. Swarnakar’s case AIR 2003 SCW 313, the appellant therein issued a notice that he be permitted to report for duty as he had not accepted the retiral benefits.’ His representation went unheeded. He sent legal notices on 22.2.2003 and 28.3.2003. The stand of the bank at all material times was and still was that a sum of Rs. 14,459.21 was paid to him by way of leave encashment of 31 days upon deduction of income tax therefor. But, it is accepted that at no point of time he had been told that the said amount had been deposited in his account as a part of benefit under the Scheme. Even, there had been ho communication to the applicant by the bank that he is being paid out of the total leave encashment of Rs. 14,459.21, after deducting a huge sum of Rs. 13,037/-, a sum of Rs. 1,422.21. The main benefit of the Scheme indisputably was the ex-gratia payment. An employee even if continued in service would have been entitled to the additional benefits which are in the nature of terminal benefits. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the conduct of the applicant therein does not indicate any knowledge about the payment in his account or his willful appropriation thereof as to constitute a waiver.
12. In Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. S1DC Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Varaprasad and Ors. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the employees have opted for VRS’bn their own without any compulsion knowing fully well about the Scheme, guidelines and circulars governing the same, it is not open to them to make any claim contrary to the terms accepted. It is a matter of contract between the Corporation and the employees. It is not for the courts to rewrite the terms of the contract which were clear to the contracting parties, as indicated in the guidelines and circulars governing them under which Voluntary Retirement Schemes floated. While considering the earlier decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in O.P. Swarnakar and other decisions, the Apex Court held that unlike in those decisions these respondents filed applications offering to take voluntary retirement under the Scheme; their applications were accepted by the Corporation which were acknowledged by these respondents; they made representations for withdrawal from the VRS Scheme several days after the Corporation accepted their applications made seeking voluntary retirement; merely because they could not be relieved in view of the interim order passed by the High Court in the writ petitions and that they could not be relieved immediately after the cut-off date for want of funds to be received from the Government by the Corporation, they could not take away the result or escape the consequences of the acceptance of their voluntary retirement by the Corporation. In other words, question of withdrawal of their applications made for seeking voluntary retirement after their acceptance did not arise and they could not be permitted to do so in law. It is fairly settled now that the voluntary retirement once accepted in terms of the Scheme or rules, as the case may be, cannot be withdrawn, in these appeals from the facts it is clear that the applications of the respondents opting for voluntary retirement under the Scheme were accepted and even the acceptance was communicated to them. Thereafter, they filed the writ petitions. Hence the High Court was hot right in allowing the writ petitions holding that they applied for withdrawal before the effective date considering the date of relieving the employees as the effective date. In the light of the discussion made in Civil Appeal No. 5638 of 1999 the High Court, in Our view, was wrong in treating 31.7.1999 as an effective date. The decisions relied on by the respondents before the High Court or in this Court on facts do not help them. Moreover, the position is to be examined on the facts of VRS and circumstances governing a particular case of withdrawal offer made seeking voluntary retirement after its due acceptance.
13. In Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr. v. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 184 the facts of the case were that in order to downsize the strength of its staff, (he appellant bank therein floated a voluntary retirement scheme. The Scheme was to remain in operation from 1.12.2000 to 31.12.2000. On 6,12.2000, the respondent therein opted for VRS. On 22.12.2000, he sought permission to withdraw his option. On 30.12.2000 and 17.1.2001, he wrote reminders in that regard. However, in view of Clause 10.4 of the Scheme, the appellant therein did not grant him such permission and on 29.1.2001, relieved him from service. Meanwhile, on 27.12.2000 and 25.1.2001, the appellant therein credited in the respondent’s saving bank account two amounts on account of salary and on 29.1.2001 credited an amount by way of notice-period salary as applicable under the VRS. On 1.2.2001, the respondent utilised the said amount to repay the car loan obtained from the appellant bank, as such repayment was necessary under the provisions of the VRS. On the same day, he closed that account. By then he had transferred the remaining amount in that account to another savings bank account. From the latter account, he invested certain amounts in the Public Provident Fund during January 2001. On 26.3.2001 the appellant bank credited the leave encashment benefit of Rs. 1,42,406.40p in that account. On 31.3.2001, the respondent therein invested that amount in fixed deposit for three years. At the instance of the respondent, the High Court held that he was entitled to withdraw his option before its acceptance by the Bank. The bank’s writ appeal was dismissed. Allowing the appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the respondent had withdrawn his option on 22.12.2000 and yet without any objection he received three credits in his account on 27.12.2000, 25.1.2001 and 29.1.2001 on account of salary (including notice pay). Thereafter, he repaid his car loan, invested Rs. 30,000/- in PP Fand Rs. 1,42,406.40 in fixed deposit for three years, which was a long-term investment. Therefore, the principle of estoppel extensively discussed in O.P. Swarhakar case, (2003) 2 SCC 721 applies to the facts herein. The conduct of the respondent indicates his knowledge about payments in his accounts; that he never objected to such payments and that he had appropriated the amounts for his benefit. Therefore, he cannot resile from the Scheme.
14. In Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the voluntary retirement, scheme was contractual in nature; that it constituted invitation and not an offer; and that no consideration passed in terms of the Scheme so as to constitute an agreement, Under the circumstances, it was held that revocation was possible and effective at any time before acceptance as up to such .acceptance no legal obligation existed and while considering the question as to whether the optees having accepted the payments/ benefits under the scheme could be permitted to resile therefrom, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that those employees who have accepted the payments/ benefits under the Scheme cannot approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to withdraw. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that estoppel is based upon the acceptance and retention of benefits, by one having knowledge or notice of the benefits from a contract or a transaction. The doctrine of estoppel is a branch of the rule against assumption of inconsistent positions. One who knowingly accepts the benefit of a contract is estopped from denying the binding effect on him of such contract. This rule has to be applied to do equity. It was accordingly held that those optees who knowingly received the payments and utilized them were not entitled to withdraw from VRS.
15. In Punjab National Bank v. Virendra Kumar Goel the applicant bank submitted that some of the optees having accepted the benefits under VRS cannot be permitted to withdraw therefrom. In that matter, several review petitions were filed and in some of those review petitions, it was found that the optees were aware of the credits in their accounts and they had even withdrawn the amounts deposited and had utilized the same and consequently in such cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to permit the optees to withdraw from VRS. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an employee who sought voluntary retirement and subsequently wrote for its withdrawal but has withdrawn the amount of retiral benefits as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is not entitled to the withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement.
16. In Bank of India and Ors. v. Pale Ram Dhania , the Bank of India introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 for its employees which had the approval of its Board of Directors. The scheme was operative w.e.f. 15.11.2000 to 1 1.12.2000 for the employees who sought voluntary retirement. It was not disputed that the respondent therein who was an employee of the appellant bank sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme on 30.11.2000 and thereafter on 2.12.2000 he wrote a letter to the bank for with drawal of his application for retirement. On 22.1.2001, the appellant bank accepted the request for voluntary retirement of the respondents and thereafter on 25.1.2001, the employee withdrew the retiral benefits deposited in bank in his name as per voluntary retirement. After withdrawal of the amount and relieved from the employment, the respondent therein changed his riiind and filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which came to be allowed and the matter was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court and while allowing the appeal filed by the Bank, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an employee who sought voluntary retirement and subsequently wrote for its withdrawal but has withdrawn the amount of retiral benefits as per the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, is not entitled to the withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. In that case, it was not disputed that the respondent therein withdrew the amount of retiral benefits on 25.1.2001.
17. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra observed as under:
The general principle is that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a ‘prospective’ resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and ‘it becomes effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office-tenure of the resignor’ (Emphasis ours). As stated above in the present case in the VRS, there was no indication regarding effective date of voluntary resignation and there is also no condition that once it was accepted it could not be withdrawn.
18. In the instant case, the respondent Corporation floated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme commonly known as RS vide Annex. R-l dated 14.7.2004. Clause 6 of the said scheme provides for submission of application and withdrawal thereof. As per Clause 6 of the Scheme, an employee can apply for VRS during the period when the scheme is open. The VRS applicants will be permitted to withdraw their applications within seven days from the date of closure of the scheme i.e. October 07, 2004. Withdrawal of requests received after the stipulated date but prior to acceptance of the VRS will be considered on merit and the discretion of the Management will be final in this regard. Indisputably, in the instant case, the petitioner applied for VRS under the Scheme Annex. R-l dated 14.7.2004 vide his application dated 17.7.2004 with effect from 31.12.2004 vide Annex. 1. The voluntary retirement proposal sent by the petitioner vide his application dated 17:7.2004 was accepted by the respondents on 18.11.2004 vide order Annex. R-2 and it was conveyed to the petitioner that consequent to the acceptance of his VRS application, the petitioner will be voluntarily retiring from the services of the Corporation w.e.f. close of business on 31.12.2004. In order to facilitate settlement of final dues expeditiously, the petitioner was asked to fill in certain forms which were sent to him. The petitioner filled the forms and submitted before the respondents. However, subsequent thereto, on 23.12.2004 vide Annex. 2, the petitioner sought to withdraw the voluntary retirement application which was not accepted by the respondents and conveyed to the petitioner. Vide Annex. R-5 dated 23.2.2005 a sum of Rs. 1,32,769.93 was sent to the petitioner by cheque dated 31.1.2005 in view of the option exercised by the petitioner for SBF Scheme contribution which the petitioner has received. One gold coin which was available to the retiring persons on superannuation weighing 25 grams, was also sent to the petitioner and the same was also received by him. The petitioner was also informed vide Annex. R- 8 dated 07.03.2005 that he has a credit balance of Rs. 5,95,760/- towards Gratuity and Ex Gratia against which a sum of Ks. 7,98,873.43 is recoverable from the petitioner on account of various loans and advances taken by him and after adjusting the payable from receivables, Rs. 2 03113.’13 is balance for recovery and he has a credit balance of Rs. 4,13,127/- towards (‘IT, therefore, lie was asked to give authorisation letter in the prescribed, form to recover the amount but the petitioner neither consented for deducting the outstanding loan amount from the amount payable nor deposited the dues outstanding to him.
19. In Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra .(supra),-there was no indication regarding effective date of voluntary resignation and there was also no condition that once it was accepted it could not be withdrawn. Whereas in the instant case, there is specific condition that the VRS applicants will be permitted to withdraw their applications within seven days from the date of closure of the scheme i.e. October, 07,2004. Withdrawal of requests received after the stipulated date but prior to acceptance of the VRS will be considered on merit and the discretion of the Management will be final in this regard.
20. Thus, under the VRS Annex. R/1, the respondent Corporation is under no obligation to accept the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of his application seeking voluntary retirement/proposal of VRS. Moreso, duration of VRS Annex. R/1 was from 1.8.200 1 to 30.9.2004 and it has been made clear that any application made after close of the said period will not be considered and therefore, in view of the clear terms of VRS Annex. R/1, the question of withdrawal of VRS application by the petitioner vide application dated 23.12.2004 after his application seeking voluntary retirement dated 17.7.2004 having been accepted by the respondent Corporation on 18.11.2004, did not arise and the petitioner under the law cannot be permitted to do so as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. SIDC Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Varaprasad and Ors. (supra) that it is fairly settled now that the voluntary retirement once accepted in terms of the Scheme or Rules, as the case may be, cannot be withdrawn.
21. From the undisputed facts stated herein above, it is clear that at the time of applying for voluntary retirement under the VRS Annex. R/1, the petitioner knowing well that the duration of the scheme is for the period commencing from August 01, 200 1 to September 30, 2004 applied for voluntary retirement under the VRS and therefore, once he applies for VRS then he can be permitted to withdraw the VRS application within seven days from the date of closure of the scheme. In the instant case, the dale of the closure of the scheme is 30.9.2004 and thus the period available to the petitioner to withdraw the VRS proposal filed by him could be only up to 07.10.2004. The VRS Annex. R/1 in clear terms stipulates that withdrawal of requests received after the stipulated date i.e. 07.10.2004 but prior to acceptance of the VRS will be considered on merit though the discretion of the Management will be final in that regard. In the instant case, not only the petitioner failed to file the application within seven days from the closure of the Scheme i.e. 7.10,2004 but also failed to file the application seeking withdrawal of the VRS proposal even till it was accepted. The application filed by the petitioner was accepted on 18.11.2004 and the petitioner moved the application seeking withdrawal of his VRS proposal on 23.12.2004. which in clear terms is contrary .to the terms and conditions of the VRS Annex. R/1 to which the parties are bound. In the instant case, the conduct of the petitioner is that after accepting the VRS application by the respondent Corporation and having been conveyed to the petitioner vide Annex. R/2 dated 18.11.2004, the petitioner filled the relevant forms in order to facilitate the final settlement of the dues expeditiously and thereafter the petitioner exercised the option vide Annex. R/4 for the SBF Scheme to receive refund of his contribution along with interest amounting to Rs. 1,32,769.93 which the petitioner received by cheque dated 31.1.2005. Not only this, the petitioner has also received one gold coin entitling a person retiring under the VRS as also received a credit balance of Rs. 5,95,760/- towards gratuity and ex-gratiaas having been credited to the petitioner’s account. Thus, the petitioner has taken the advantage of the VRS scheme even after his application seeking to withdraw the VRS proposal. Thus, the principle of estoppel as has been extensively discussed in O.P. Swarnakar case (supra) applies as in the instant case the estoppel is based upon the acceptance and retention of benefits by the petitioner having knowledge or. notice of the benefits from the contract of VRS Annex. R/1 and the petitioner therefore, estopped from denying the binding effect of such a scheme. The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar case (supra), Vice-Chairman’ and Managing Director, A.P. SIDC Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Varaprasad and Ors. (supra), Punjab and Sihd Bank and Anr. v. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa and Anr. (supra) and Bank of India and Ors. v. Pale Ram Dhania (supra) and therefore, the decisions relied on by learned Counsellor the respondents apply with all force to the facts of the instant case. The decisions relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner in Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India and Anr. (supra), Balram Gupta v. Union of India (supra) and Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors. v. Mohinder Pal Singh and Ors. (supra) turn on their own facts.
22. In Shambhu Murari Sinha’s case (supra), the letter of acceptance was a conditional one and material condition i.e. release memo along with detailed particulars would follow, has not been fulfilled as no such release memo has been forwarded to the petitioner therein before the effective date of retirement or actual date of release.
23. In Balram Gupta’s case (supra) the voluntary retirement was to take effect w.e.f. 31.3.1981 and notice of voluntary retirement was withdrawn by the petitioner therein on 31.1.1981 and he was informed by the employer that his notice of withdrawal was under consideration. However, while relieving the petitioner therein by order dated 31.3.1981 it has been mentioned that withdrawal application was considered and was found not acceptable.
24. In Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors. (supra) the appellant therein did not accept the retirement benefits and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the conduct of the petitioner therein does not indicate any knowledge about the payment in his account or his willful appropriation thereof as to constitute a waiver.
25. Most of the decisions relied on by the petitioner do not relate to the VRS. The VRS as such is a scheme floated by the respondent Corporation and it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. SIDC Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Varaprasad and Ors. that it is a matter of contract between the Corporation and the employees. When the employees have opted for VRS on their own without any compulsion knowing fully well about the Scheme, guidelines and circulars governing the same, it is not open to them to make any claim contrary to the terms accepted and therefore, it is not for the Courts to rewrite the terms of the contract which were clear to the contracting parties. The decisions relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner are therefore, of no help to the petitioner.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. The application being LA. No. 4193/06 also stands dismissed. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.