ORDER Aravind Kumar, J.— 2nd respondent Bank introduced a Scheme called "Vijaya Bank (employees) Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 as per Circular No. 231/2000 dated 23-11-2000 which is produced at Annexure-'A'. Petitioner No. 8 who was working as clerical staff in second respondent Bank, submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 29-12-2000 which came to be accepted by the bank on 28-2-2001. There afterwards the petitioner by letter/communication dated 9-4-2001 sought for withdrawal of the application submitted for voluntary retirement. However, the respondents had already accepted the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner on 29-12-2000 and intended to relieve the 8th petitioner on 30-4-2001. The fact remains that on 28-2-2001 an endorsement came to be issued to the 8th petitioner informing him that his application for voluntary retirement has been accepted and that he would be relieved of the services of the bank on 30-4-2001 and it is against this endorsement the 8th petitioner submitted an appeal to the Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank i.e., the third respondent seeking for setting aside the said endorsement issued by the competent authority and also permission to continue in service. The said appeal has not been disposed off and same is pending without being considered according to the petitioner. 2. Immediately there afterwards 8th petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 23-4-2001 and was granted an interim order on 24-4-2001 by virtue of which the 8th petitioner has continued in the service of the bank as on date. 3. The petitioner is now seeking the following reliefs in the present writ petition. (i) For striking down paragraph 11.5.0 of the Vijaya Bank (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme,2000 which is at Annexure 'A' on the ground that it is ultra vires of the Articles 14, 16, 21, 41, and 42 of the Constitution of India. (ii) For Certiorari to quash the endorsement J-2 on the ground that it is capricious, ultra vires arbitrary, irrational, unjust and unsustainable and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. (iii) A mandamus to the bank to permit them to continue the petitioner in the services of the bank till the petitioner attains the age of superannuation and, (iv) All consequential benefits to which the petitioner is entitled for including the costs of this proceedings. 4. (iii) A mandamus to the bank to permit them to continue the petitioner in the services of the bank till the petitioner attains the age of superannuation and, (iv) All consequential benefits to which the petitioner is entitled for including the costs of this proceedings. 4. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed their objections and contended that because of policy decision to rationalise and restructure the same so as to yield optimum working results and it is only after due deliberation and consideration of all aspects of the matter the scheme for voluntary retirement came to be formulated. It is further contended that scheme was an offer from the bank to the employees and it is for the employees to accept or not. By opting to take voluntary retirement an employee is deemed to have accepted the offer. Hence, it is contended the mere submission of application for voluntary retirement resulted in a binding contract on both the parties and hence they are bound by the same. 5. Sri. Subramanya Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for M/s Subba Rao Associates for the petitioners contends as follows: (i) That acceptance letter by the second respondent bank dated 28-2-2001 is conditional; (ii) The words "subject to your complying": and even later Clauses in the said letter dated 28-2-2001 is conditional; (iii) The said letter of acceptance postulates reciprocal promises to be fulfilled by both the sides, and which has not been complied by respondents. Elaborating his submissions Sri. Subramanya Bhat contends that by virtue of Clause 11.7.0 of the scheme the petitioner had a right to withdraw before being relieved from the services and would further contend that acceptance would have to be without conditions and by imposition of a condition in the acceptance letter the said contract itself would become a counter offer. Salary to the petitioner had not been paid while accepting the letter/application submitted for voluntary retirement as such the acceptance is not an acceptance in the eye of law and even the offer itself is incomplete. Sri. Subramanya Bhat would rely upon the decision reported in the matter of Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development India Ltd. and Another, AIR 2002 SC 1341 drawing the attention of the Court particularly to paragraphs 18 and 19. It is the further submission of Sri. Sri. Subramanya Bhat would rely upon the decision reported in the matter of Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project and Development India Ltd. and Another, AIR 2002 SC 1341 drawing the attention of the Court particularly to paragraphs 18 and 19. It is the further submission of Sri. Subramanya Bhat that acceptance must be absolute and unconditional and if it is conditional Section 7 of the Contract Act is attracted and the contract itself becomes unenforceable and bad in law. 6. Per contra Sri. Pradeep Sawkar, Advocate appearing for the respondent by relying upon the following judgments: (i) Bank of India and Others Vs. O.P. Swaranakar etc., AIR 2003 SC 858 (ii) Punjab National Bank Vs. Virender Kumar Goel and Others, AIR 2004 SC 3988 (iii) Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. R. Varaprasad and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4050 would contend that the issue which is now sought to be urged in the present writ petition is no more res Integra in view of the above decisions and as such seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. It is brought to the notice of the Court by Pradeep Sawkar that paragraph 130 in Swarnakar's case to contend that the same is applicable in all force to the facts of the present case. 7. I have heard Sri. Subramanya Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Pradeep Sawkar and Sri. Anandaram appearing along with Sri. Pradeep Sawkar and the points that arise for consideration as are as follows: (i) Whether the Clause 11.5.0 of the Scheme namely Vijayabank (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 is required to be struck down as ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14, 16, 21, 41 & 42 of the Constitution of India? (ii) Whether the endorsement dated 28-2-2001 (Annexure-J-2) requires to be quashed? (iii) What reliefs the parties are entitled to? 8. The undisputed fact is that the 8th petitioner namely Sri. Jayaprakash Shetty in pursuance to the scheme namely Vijayabank (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 submitted an application dated 29-12-2000 requesting thereunder to accept the same and sought for voluntary retirement. (ii) Whether the endorsement dated 28-2-2001 (Annexure-J-2) requires to be quashed? (iii) What reliefs the parties are entitled to? 8. The undisputed fact is that the 8th petitioner namely Sri. Jayaprakash Shetty in pursuance to the scheme namely Vijayabank (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 submitted an application dated 29-12-2000 requesting thereunder to accept the same and sought for voluntary retirement. The said application for voluntary retirement was considered by the respondents which was found to be consistent with the scheme and came to be accepted which was also communicated to the 8th petitioner by communication dated 28-2-2001 which is at Annexure J-2, informing the petitioner thereunder that he would be relieved from the services of the bank on 30-4-2001. The said Communication dated 28-2-2001 reads as under: Your application for voluntary retirement under Vijaya Bank (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2000 has been Accepted by the Competent authority subject to your complying with all the relevant provisions of the scheme particularly Clause 11.7.0 of Vijaya Bank (Employees') Voluntary Retirement Scheme-2000, communicated vide H.O. Circular 231/2000 dated 23.11.2000. Accordingly you will be relieved from the services of the Bank on 30.4.2001. Further on setting relieved from the service of the Bank, you are advised to surrender the identity card, etc. issued to you by the Bank. The Bank Reserves the right to reject your application any time in future before relieving you from the service. In case there is any Contemplated/or disciplinary action initiated or to be initiated against you. On receipt of the said communication, 8th petitioner claims to have wise Counsel prevailed over him and hence intended to withdraw the offer given by him and accordingly by letter dated 9-4-2001 which is at Annexure J-1 came to be submitted seeking thereunder to treat the application dated 29-12-2000 as withdrawn. It is the contention of Sri. Subramanya Bhat that even before being relieved the withdrawal application came to be submitted on 9-4-2001 and hence it cannot be considered as a concluded contract and it is also contended that in view of the Clauses mentioned in the letter of acceptance dated 28-2-2001 which shows that the said acceptance as conditional and also reciprocal promise was required to be performed by employer and same not having been performed the said acceptance by employer is not an acceptance in the eye of law. In this regard Sri. In this regard Sri. Pradeep Sawkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would draw attention of this Court to paragraph 113 which reads as follows: 1. The submission of the learned Attorney-General that as soon as an offer is made by an employee, the same would amount to resignation in praesenti cannot be accepted. The Scheme was in force for a fixed period. A decision by the authority was required to be taken and till a decision was taken, the jural relationship of employer and employee continued and the employees concerned would have been entitled to payment of all salaries and allowances etc. Thus it cannot be said to be a case where the offer was given in praesenti but the same would be prospective in nature keeping in view of the fact that it was come into force at a later date and that too subject to acceptance thereof by the employer. We therefore, are of the opinion that the decisions of this court, as referred to hereinbefore, shall apply to the facts of the present case also. and would contend that the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the case. It is submitted by Sri. Pradeep Sawkar to contend that the said judgment in Swarnakar's case was resulting in different understanding and as such the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Virender Kumar Goel and Others, AIR 2004 SC 3988 considered the said judgment namely Swarnakar's case and noticed as follows: Before we advert further, we may at this stage, notice the operative directions rendered in the judgement sought to be reviewed/clarified, strictly relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present applications. This Court inter alia held that the request of an employee seeking voluntarily retirement would not take effect until and unless it was accepted in writing by the competent authority and, therefore, this Court uphold the right of the employee to withdraw his option from voluntary retirement before, the same was accepted. and contends that admittedly in the instant case the 2nd respondent has accepted the letter of resignation for voluntary retirement dated 29-12-2000 on 28-2-2001 which has also been communicated to 8th petitioner and as such petitioner is estopped from contending contrary after acceptance. He further contends that in the case of Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. He further contends that in the case of Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. R. Varaprasad and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4050 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Corporation in the said case had accepted the options given by the employees and could not pay the monetary benefits as admitted by them in their letter of acceptance as they were awaiting the funds from the Government and this fact not paying the funds was also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that when employees have opted for VRS on their own without any compulsion knowing fully well of the scheme guide lines and circular governing the same it was not open to them to make any claim contrary to the terms accepted. He further contends that the acceptance of withdrawal letters would not arise particularly after the bank having accepted the same. 9. In this background if the rival contentions are examined for answering question No. 1 and No. 2 formulated herein above it would be necessary to look into the scheme, the letter submitted for voluntary retirement, the letter of acceptance by the bank as also the letter of withdrawal by the 8th petitioner. 10. The Scheme which is at Annexure-'A' was introduced as a one time measure by the bank which had received the nod of the Government for implementing the same. As per the contentions of the bank the said scheme came to be introduced to optimise and to achieve a balanced age and skill profile in keeping with their business strategies. The other undisputed fact is that the said scheme came to be circulated to all the employees by circular No. 23-11-2000 which was to come into force with effect from 1-12-2000. After several rounds of discussions at the industry level and after due deliberations the same scheme came into force which was kept open from 1-12-2000 to 31-01-2001 and the said scheme was purely voluntary and optional. It would be suffice to extract 11.5.0 at this juncture which reads as follows: 11.5.0 The application seeking voluntary retirement submitted by the employee under the Scheme shall be irrevocable. It will not be open for an employee to withdraw the application after having exercised such option voluntarily, under any circumstances. It would be suffice to extract 11.5.0 at this juncture which reads as follows: 11.5.0 The application seeking voluntary retirement submitted by the employee under the Scheme shall be irrevocable. It will not be open for an employee to withdraw the application after having exercised such option voluntarily, under any circumstances. Thus, employees were aware of the offer given by the bank to its employees and it was within the domain of the employees of the either to accept it or not to accept it. Admittedly in the instant case the 8th petitioner herein submitted his application for voluntary retirement having understood the Clauses enumerated in the scheme on 29-12-2000 which was well within the time and on consideration of the said application as per scheme the respondent authorities accepted it which fact was communicated on 28-2-2001. The scheme when examined in its entire perspective the conclusion which requires to be drawn is that the scheme itself is in the form of an offer and the conditions mentioned in the said scheme is binding on the petitioner and have understood and accepted the said scheme the petitioner has submitted his application for voluntary retirement which is now sought to be termed as having reciprocal promise required to be performed and thus it is hit by Section 7 of the Contract Act. This issue having been considered by their Lordships in Swarnakar's case and other judgments referred to supra and held that the said contention was not required to be accepted and had been accordingly rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 110 has held to the following effect: 110. The respondent received a letter dated 20-2-1986 that he would prematurely retire from service with effect from 31-8-1986. On a writ petition moved by the respondent before the Karnataka High Court, it was held that having regard to the offer made on 19-2-1986, the subsequent action taken by the Department on 20-2-1986 had no effect. In this Court an argument was advanced that having regard to the policy decision of which the respondent was aware and having given a certificate at the time of submission of application for premature retirement that he was aware of the fact that his request for withdrawal or cancellation subsequently would not be accepted, the impugned judgement of the High Court was erroneous but rejecting the same this Court held: (SCC pp. 162-63, para 6) 6. 162-63, para 6) 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. The reliance placed for the appellants on the decision reported in Raj Kumar case is inappropriate to the facts of this case. In that case this Court merely emphasized the position that when a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation determination of his employment his service clearly stands terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the condition of the service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority and that till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned had locus poenitentiae but not thereafter. Thus, the scheme admittedly is not a part of any statutory regulation but in relm it is a contract. The scheme as a whole being a contract and the petitioner having accepted the said scheme by submitting his application for voluntary retirement cannot now contend that the condition imposed in the scheme is built with reciprocal promises and/or the said reciprocal promises having not been fulfilled even on facts the said question would not arise inasmuch the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement came to be accepted on 28-2-2001 specifying thereunder the petitioner would be relieved with effect from 30-4-2001. It is in this factual matrix the decision in Swarnakar's case would apply to the facts of the present case in all force. Hence, it is held that Clause 11.5.0 in the scheme does not require to be struck down and the said question is answered by holding that the Clause 11.5.0 in the scheme is intra vires. 11. In so far as the contention with regard to Clause 11.7.0 which is to the following effect: 11.7.0 All amounts payable under the Scheme and any other service/retirement/terminal benefits will be subject to prior settlement/repayment in full of all loans, advances, dues, returning/surrendering of quarters. Bank's property, if any, and any other outstanding dues to the Bank payable by the employee to the Bank. Bank's property, if any, and any other outstanding dues to the Bank payable by the employee to the Bank. It is contended that before payment was to be made by 2nd respondent on 30-4-2001 the petitioner submitted application for withdrawal and it is also contended that petitioner had a right to withdraw before being relieved, inasmuch as the acceptance of the voluntary retirement letter by the bank which is at Annexure J-2 is qualified with the words "subject to your complying" as also the payment. It is contended by Mr.Bhat that both these conditions having remained a promise and would be hit by Section 7 of the Contract Act. He would contend that acceptance of the voluntary retirement should have been absolute without any qualifications. The words "subject to your complying" would be a qualification and hence it cannot get blossomed itself to unqualified acceptance. In this regard Sri. Narayana Bhat relies upon the decision in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha as also Badriprasad referred to supra. 12. In so far the Shambhu Murari case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider same in the case of Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. R. Varaprasad and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4050 and held as follows: These appeals are directed against the common order made in W.Ps Nos. 15703 and 15742 of 1999. Respondent 1 Vijay Kumar, in CA No. 4658 of 2001 and Respondent 1 A. Simhadri, in CA No. 4659 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the respondents") filed Writ Petitions Nos. 15703 and 15742 of 1999 in the High Court seeking direction to the appellant Corporation to continue them in service till they attain superannuation. Both are covered by VRS Phase III. The Corporation fixed 31-10-1998 as the cut-off date for VRS Phase III. Respondents Vijay Kumar and A. Simhadri filed applications seeking voluntary retirement under the said Scheme on 31-10-1998 and 10-10-1998 respectively. The corporation accepted their options on 24-11-1998 and 27-10-1998, which were also acknowledged by the respondents on 26-11-1998 and 2-11-1998. Thereafter, they applied for withdrawal of the option given for VRS on 8-1-1999 and 26-2-1999 respectively. These respondents could not be relieved from service along with a large number of other employees who were relieved on 31-7-1999 under VRS Phase III because of the interim order granted by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by them. Thereafter, they applied for withdrawal of the option given for VRS on 8-1-1999 and 26-2-1999 respectively. These respondents could not be relieved from service along with a large number of other employees who were relieved on 31-7-1999 under VRS Phase III because of the interim order granted by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by them. The division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned order, allowed the writ petitions and directed the Corporation to continue their services till their attaining the age of superannuation. In doing so, the High Court followed the decisions of this Court in Balram Gupta v. Union of India, J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India. The High Court was of the view that the respondents had filed their withdrawal applications on 8-1-1999 and 26-2-1999 and had the benefit of interim directions to continue in service granted by the High Court on 30-7-1999 while they were to be relieved on 31-7-1999 and the result was that they were still in service on that date. The High Court further observed that these respondents had made the applications for withdrawal before the effective date i.e., 31-7-1999 and they having not accepted the monetary benefits under the VRS Scheme, could withdraw their applications opting for VRS. In this view, the writ petitions of these respondents were allowed. Before us, the learned Counsel on both sides relied on the decision of this Court in Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar and a few other decisions. The decisions cited on behalf of the respondents do not help them. Unlike in those decisions these respondents filed applications offering to take voluntary retirement under the Scheme; their applications were accepted by the Corporation which were acknowledged by these respondents; they made representations for withdrawal from the VRS Scheme several days after the Corporation accepted their applications made seeking voluntary retirement; merely because they could not be relieved in view of the interim order passed by the High Court in the writ petitions and that they could not be relieved immediately after the cut-off date for want of funds to be received from the Government by the Corporation, they could not take away the result or escape the consequences of the acceptance of their voluntary retirement by the Corporation. In other words, question to withdrawal of their applications made for seeking voluntary retirement after their acceptance did not arise and they could not be permitted to do so in law. It is fairly settled now that the voluntary retirement once accepted in terms of the Scheme or rules, as the case may be, cannot be withdrawn. In these appeals from the facts it is clear that the applications of the respondents opting for voluntary retirement under the Scheme were accepted and even the acceptance was communicated to them. Thereafter, they filed the writ petitions. Hence the High Court was not right in allowing the writ petitions holding that they applied for withdrawal before the effective date considering the date of relieving the employees as the effective date. In the light of the discussions made in civil Appeal No. 5638 of 1999 the High Court, in our view, was wrong in treating 31-7-1999 as an effective date. The decisions relied on by the respondents before the High Court or in this Court on facts do not help them. Moreover, the position is to be examined on the facts, terms of VRS and circumstances governing a particular case of withdrawal offer made seeking voluntary retirement after its due acceptance. The law laid down therein would squarely apply herein also and admittedly in the instant case Clause 11.5.0 which is to the effect that it would not be open to the employee after having exercised such option voluntarily under any circumstances cannot be withdrawn is glaring at the petitioner which fact cannot be lost sight of by this Court. Hence the said decision namely Shambhu Murari's case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, but on the other hand the decision of Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. R. Varaprasad and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4050 is applicable. 13. In so far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner which is to the effect that the acceptance letter dated 28-2-2001 was loaded with reciprocal promises which was required to be performed by both the parties and also the same was not without any qualification to contend that it is no contract in the eye of law. In so far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner which is to the effect that the acceptance letter dated 28-2-2001 was loaded with reciprocal promises which was required to be performed by both the parties and also the same was not without any qualification to contend that it is no contract in the eye of law. I am afraid the said argument would not be tenable for two reasons: (i) The scheme as a whole itself is a contract and when the scheme itself proposes by way of an offer and when the said offer is accepted by such person namely the petitioner in the instant case by submitting his application for voluntary retirement he is deemed to have accepted the said offer and hence the said contention cannot be accepted. (ii) The very same Clause 11.7.0 of the scheme was the subject matter for consideration by Bombay High Court in W.P. 162/2001 in the case of Mr. N. Dinakara Shetty, Assistant Manager, Vijaya Bank Vs. The Union of India (UOI) , represented by the Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Finance and Others, (2005) 6 BomCR 470 , whereunder their Lordship at paragraph 22 has held as follows: Second submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the acceptance was conditional. It was conditional in that it was accepted subject to the payment of all the dues as per the condition contained in Clause 11.7.0 of the scheme. It was also conditional in that the petitioner was denied and was informed that the petitioner was ineligible for additional five years remuneration of service for the purpose of determining pension as per Regulation 29 of the Regulations. On the other hand, it has been pointed out on behalf of the Bank, and in our view rightly, that the petitioner had not taken these pleas in either of his letters of withdrawal dated 10th April, 2001, as well as 15th May, 2001, nor in the petition, as originally filed and they were introduced for the first time by amendment during the hearing of the petition on or about 20th March, 2005. Admittedly, the petitioner was bound to comply with Clause 11.7.0 of the Scheme by which the employees were informed that all amounts payable under the Scheme would be subject to prior settlement, repayment in full of all loans, advances, dues etc. Admittedly, the petitioner was bound to comply with Clause 11.7.0 of the Scheme by which the employees were informed that all amounts payable under the Scheme would be subject to prior settlement, repayment in full of all loans, advances, dues etc. Moreover, the petitioner in terms of Column 8 of his application dated 6th December, 2000, had clearly undertaken to ensure closure of all his liabilities to the Bank before he was relieved from service and not only that, the petitioner had also mentioned what were his liabilities in sub-column (a) of Column 8 of the said application of voluntary retirement dated 6th December, 2000, and only because the Bank in their letter dated 28th February, 2001, informed the petitioner that he had to comply with Clause 11.7.0 of the Scheme, it does not mean that the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was accepted conditionally. That was only a clarification mentioned by the Bank in terms of Clause 11.7.0 of the Scheme and the undertaking given to that effect by the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination it could be said that it was a condition of acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement. 14. Sri. Subramanya Bhat in reply would contend that this judgment would not be binding and is of persuasive value only. However, I am not persuaded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to deviate from the view taken by the High Court of Bombay and as such I would follow the view taken therein and hence the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not accepted and same is hereby rejected. 15. In view of the above discussions the following order is passed: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Rule issued on 17-1-2003 is discharged. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.