Further, the credits in the savings bank accounts were used by the respondent to repay his car loan to the bank amounting to Rs.65220/ , which was one of the companyditions prescribed in the scheme.
Aggrieved, he filed the writ petition in the High Court on 26.3.2001 inter alia seeking resumption of duties without any break in service.
Further, the said respondent had utilized the credits in the said accounts for investment in fixed deposits.
Therefore, he was number entitled to withdraw from the scheme.
On 24.7.2001, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the optee is entitled to withdraw his option before its acceptance by the bank.
By impugned judgment dated 5.9.2001, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
On 22.12.2000, respondent number1 requested that he be allowed to withdraw his option.
On 28.10.2000, in order to down size the strength of its staff, the appellant floated the voluntary retirement scheme hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as VRS .
On 30.12.2000 and 17.1.2001, the said respondent wrote reminders and requested that he be permitted to withdraw his option.
However, in view of clause 10.4 of the scheme, the appellant did number permit him to opt out from the VRS.
The scheme was to companymence with effect from 1.12.2000 and it was to remain in operation up to 31.12.2000.
In this companynection, reliance was placed on the averments in the companynter affidavit filed by the appellant on 28.2.2004 in I.A. No.1 of 2003 filed in the present civil appeal.
Accordingly, it was submitted that the respondent had received the payments under the scheme, he had utilized those payments to discharge his obligations under the scheme by repayment of car loan and he had invested the amounts in fixed deposits.
Hence, this civil appeal by special leave petition.
On 6.12.2000, respondent number1, Ranveer Singh Bawa, opted for VRS.
On 23.12.2000, the scheme stood modified.
The facts giving rise to the dispute lie within narrow companypass.
It was urged that the said respondent had two savings bank accounts number4775 and 4777, in which the bank credited salaries, numberice period salary as well as leave encashment benefits under the scheme, which was never objected to by the respondent.
Against the decision of the learned Single Judge, the appellant carried the matter in appeal to the Division Bench.
Appellant is a nationalised bank.
Consequently, w.e.f.
29.1.2001, respondent number1 was relieved from service.
