Zafar lqbal vs Habib Bank Ltd and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The core legal question concerns whether an employee, having tendered a voluntary application for premature retirement to join another financial institution and subsequently received all retirement dues and accepted alternative employment, can be permitted to approbate and reprobate by seeking withdrawal of his retirement application to claim the benefits of a subsequently introduced Golden Hand Shake Scheme. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having acted upon his premature retirement option, joined another bank, and received salaries during the pendency of the matter, was estopped by his conduct from challenging the acceptance of his retirement or claiming benefits under the subsequent scheme. The ratio decidendi is that an employee who voluntarily retires and accepts new employment cannot subsequently approbate and reprobate to claim the benefit of an intervening retirement scheme.
- Can an employee withdraw an option for premature retirement after the employer has accepted it and the employee has taken up alternative employment?
- Whether an employee who receives retirement dues and joins another bank can claim benefits under a subsequently introduced Golden Hand Shake Scheme?
- Does a service tribunal judgment warrant interference when the appellant approbates and reprobates regarding premature retirement?
ORDER
IFTIKHAR AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17th July, 2001, passed by Federal Service Tribunal whereby Appeal No. 1833-111998 filed by petitioner has been dismissed. Concluding para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:"We have heard the parties at some length, erused the documents available on record and this Tribunal regret to observe that when the appellant tendered his premature retirement with his own free will, the same was accepted by the respondent-Bank and the appellant got received his all retiring dues without any reservation, then how the appellant can be allowed be approbate and reprobate at the same breath? Obviously, no law of the land allowed the appellant to travel in two boats at the same time which he did. On one hand, during the service, he joined the Metropolitan Bank and received salaries even during the period of 19 months pending decision upon his application of premature retirement, while on the other hand, the appellant claimed the salaries of the period until the dates of the decision of the acceptance of his premature retirement. The appellant is stopped by his own words and conduct in agitating the matter of his premature retirement and fails to make out any case for the interference of this Tribunal".
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that petitioner while serving in the respondent-Bank as Assistant Vice-President, upon completion of 25 years, filed his option for premature retirement dated 15th May, 1996 with immediate effect for the reason that he wanted to join another financial institution for lucrative. He also cleared his all dues and liabilities for the purpose of effecting his order of retirement and an NOC. The respondent-Bank lingered on the matter of the acceptance of premature retirement, however, later on vide order dated 14th February, 1998 accepted the application of petitioner for premature retirement, against which he preferred appeal to the President of the Bank dated 10th March, 1998 praying to allow him the resumption of duties in the respondent-Bank but remained unresponded, as such he approached the Federal Service Tribunal for cancellation of the order of his retirement dated 14th February, 1998, alongwith letter of confirmation of the same dated 7th October, 1998 and to declare the same to be illegal, unjustified with the prayer to restore the employment of the petitioner with the respondent.
Bank Learned Service Tribunal, however, did not accede to the request of petitioner and dismissed the appeal filed by him by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that petitioner's case was delayed for a considerable period by the respondent-Bank and, in the meantime, he submitted an application dated 15th September, 1997 for retirement under Golden Hand Shake Scheme introduced on 23rd August, 1997 and option of premature retirement was withdrawn by him by submitting application dated 17th January, 1998, therefore, he was entitled for the benefits of Golden Hand Shake Scheme, which had been introduced in the meanwhile.
4. Suffice to observe that Department did not allow the petitioner to withdraw his earlier request for premature retirement which he has made by submitting application dated 10th May, 1996 and ultimately accepted the same on 14th February, 1998, therefore, petitioner under these circumstances, was not entitled for any of the benefits of the Golden Hand Shake Scheme, which was introduced in the meantime. It is equally important to note that petitioner after having submitting the application for premature. Retirement joined the Metropolitan Bank and received salaries for the period of 19 months pending decision upon his application for premature retirement, therefore, he cannot claim benefits of salary etc. For this period no benefits of Golden Hand Shake Scheme can be extended to him because it was announced when petitioner had already joined Metropolitan Bank. Thus for such reasons judgment passed by the Service Tribunal admits no interference by this Court.
For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed and leave declined. .1