An employee has no right to withdraw his voluntary retirement scheme application once it has been accepted by the management, the Delhi high court has held.
While dismissing an appeal filed against the single judge order by one Shyam Lal seeking a direction to treat him as an India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (renamed as Hotel Indraprastha) employee, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Markandeya Katju and Justice Madan B Lokur said that an employee couldn't revert to the earlier stand once his VRS application was accepted.
The court said, ". . . in our opinion once the application has been accepted, a person has no right to withdraw it."
The judges relied on the Supreme Court judgement (State Bank of India vs Romesh Chander) which had held that if employees were allowed to withdraw from the scheme at any time, it would not be possible to work out the scheme as all calculations of the management would fail.
The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Division Bench seeking quashing of the single judge's impugned judgement which had stated that the petitioner had sought to withdraw his VRS application only after it had received communication from the
'Hotel Indraprastha' informing him that he couldn't be taken on its rolls because his application had already been accepted.
The petitioner had sought a direction to the ITDC to withdraw its Rs 656,000 deposited with Standard Chartered Bank as the full and final settlement of his VRS dues. Besides, he had submitted that he had withdrawn his option for VRS prior to its acceptance.
According to the petitioner, he wanted to continue in service and was influenced to submit his antedated VRS application during the divestment of Ashok Yatri Niwas. He had joined the hotel as a junior stenographer in 1982 and was promoted to the level of assistant manager in 1993.
Instead of communicating about the acceptance of the VRS application, the respondent had informed the petitioner about its instruction to its bank for releasing his VRS dues, he had alleged.
The petitioner had requested the respondent to post him anywhere in the country. However, the ITDC had refused to entertain his representation.
