TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies VRS scheme rules, mandates written acceptance for retirement requests. Reinstatement and refund ordered.</h1> <h3>Punjab National Bank Versus Virender Kumar Goel & Ors.</h3> Punjab National Bank Versus Virender Kumar Goel & Ors. - 2004 AIR 3988, 2004 (1) SCR 920, 2004 (2) SCC 193, 2004 (1) JT 566, 2004 (1) SCALE 621 Issues:Review/clarification/modification of judgment dated 17.12.2002 in batches of Civil Appeals, acceptance of benefits under the VRS scheme, interpretation of directions issued by the Court, reinstatement of employees, refund of benefits, back wages entitlement, clarification on appeals filed by State Bank of Patiala.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed applications seeking review/clarification/ modification of its judgment dated 17.12.2002 related to Civil Appeals concerning the VRS scheme. The Court clarified that it was not sitting on appeal over the previous judgment and highlighted the importance of the directions issued in the judgment for the disposal of present applications. The Court emphasized that an employee's request for voluntary retirement would only be effective upon written acceptance by the competent authority, allowing the employee to withdraw the option before acceptance (paragraphs 114-115). The Court issued specific directions regarding appeals by nationalized banks, State Bank of India, and judgments of various High Courts (paragraph 130).In the detailed analysis of the issues, the Court examined specific cases related to the acceptance of benefits under the VRS scheme by employees. It reviewed a petition by a bank employee who had accepted benefits under the scheme and utilized them, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the High Court's judgment. The Court scrutinized other applications to determine if the applicants had genuinely accepted a part of the benefits under the VRS scheme as per the Court's directions. It was established that mere depositing of benefits into bank accounts without withdrawal or utilization did not constitute acceptance under the scheme (I.A.Nos. 1-3).The Court allowed the reinstatement of employees in cases where they had not accepted the benefits under the scheme as per the directions. It mandated the refund of the entire amount deposited into bank accounts by the applicants with accrued interest as a condition for reinstatement. The Court rejected the argument of 'No Work No Pay' for back wages, emphasizing that the applicants were out of their jobs due to no fault of their own (I.A.Nos. 1-3).Furthermore, the Court clarified the status of appeals filed by the State Bank of Patiala, aligning them with the judgment's directions regarding the State Bank of India. The Court provided detailed analyses of individual cases where employees had withdrawn and utilized the benefits, leading to the dismissal of those applications (I.A.Nos. 14-15).In conclusion, the Court allowed specific review petitions and applications while dismissing others based on the acceptance or utilization of benefits under the VRS scheme. The judgment provided detailed guidance on the interpretation of directions, reinstatement conditions, and the alignment of appeals by the State Bank of Patiala with those of the State Bank of India.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
