Respondent bound by acceptance of retirement scheme benefits despite legal challenges.

The Division Bench held in Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar that a respondent who accepted payments under a voluntary retirement scheme could not withdraw, emphasizing the doctrine of estoppel. The respondent's actions of utilizing the payments for various purposes indicated acceptance of the benefits, precluding withdrawal despite pending legal challenges. The Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision and denying the respondent's plea to withdraw from the scheme. No costs were awarded in the case.

---

---

Issues:
- Whether a respondent who opted for voluntary retirement scheme can withdraw after receiving payments under the schemeRs.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute where a nationalized bank introduced a voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) to downsize its staff. The respondent opted for VRS but later requested to withdraw the option, which was not permitted by the bank due to the scheme's clause. The High Court allowed the respondent's plea to withdraw, but the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The central issue was whether the respondent could withdraw after accepting payments under the scheme.

In the case of Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar, it was held that optees who accepted payments under the scheme could not withdraw. The bank argued that the respondent had received and utilized payments for various purposes, including repaying a car loan and investing in fixed deposits. On the other hand, the respondent contended that he had opted for VRS before the cut-off date and repeatedly requested to withdraw. The respondent claimed that receiving payments did not waive his right to withdraw, especially since the writ petition challenging his relief from service was pending.

The bank relied on the doctrine of estoppel, emphasizing that the respondent knowingly accepted and utilized the payments, which prevented him from withdrawing from the scheme. The bank presented detailed account statements showing the credits and transactions made by the respondent, indicating his awareness and utilization of the payments. The respondent's actions, such as repaying loans and making long-term investments, demonstrated his knowledge and acceptance of the benefits under the scheme.

Considering the principles of estoppel discussed in previous judgments, the Court concluded that the respondent's conduct indicated his awareness and acceptance of payments under the scheme. Therefore, the respondent could not resile from the VRS after utilizing the benefits. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous judgment with no costs awarded.

---