Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a retired Deputy Manager of State Bank of India. He took voluntary retirement with effect from the afternoon of 31.03.2002. At the time of his retirement, when ex-gratia was paid under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS, for short), the salary received by the petitioner from 01.04.2001 till 31.03.2002 was deducted. The writ petitioner seeks for a Writ of mandamus to issue a direction to the respondents-bank to pay the same to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner joined State Bank of India as a Cashier on 20.09.1966. He received several promotions. He became a Deputy Manager on 17.05.1986. In 2000, the State Bank of India introduced VRS for the employees of the bank. One of the conditions for the application of the scheme is that the employee should have completed 55 years of age by 31.12.2000. 3. The petitioner was born on 01.01.1946. The petitioner applied for the VRS. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner would complete 55 years on 01.01.2001 only and not by the cut off date of 31.12.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.15865 of 2000. The writ petition was disposed of on 03.01.2002 ordering the bank to consider the case of the petitioner. 4. On the basis of the orders in the writ petition, the bank issued proceedings dated 16.03.2000 prescribing two conditions for accepting the proposal of the petitioner for VRS viz. i) the petitioner must forego salary from 01.04.2001 till 31.03.2002, and ii) the petitioner shall forego interest thereon. On 21.03.2002, the petitioner submitted a representation that the petitioner was not agreeable of the two conditions imposed through proceedings dated 16.03.2002 and requested the petitioner be relieved under VRS without imposing any conditions. On 27.03.2002, a letter was issued by the bank rejecting the request of the petitioner for VRS on the ground that the petitioner did not agree for the two conditions. On the same day, the petitioner submitted a letter withdrawing his letter dated 21.03.2002 and accepting for the conditions imposed through proceedings dated 16.03.2002. Consequently, the petitioner was relieved from service on 31.03.2002. It was recorded that the petitioner was relieved from service on 31.03.2001, albeit he was relieved on 31.03.2002. 5. Thereafter, ex gratia was calculated. On the same day, the petitioner submitted a letter withdrawing his letter dated 21.03.2002 and accepting for the conditions imposed through proceedings dated 16.03.2002. Consequently, the petitioner was relieved from service on 31.03.2002. It was recorded that the petitioner was relieved from service on 31.03.2001, albeit he was relieved on 31.03.2002. 5. Thereafter, ex gratia was calculated. The salary drawn by the petitioner from 01.04.2001 to 3103.2002 was deducted from the ex-gratia payable to the petitioner and the balance was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a representation to the Managing Director of the bank on 27.09.2002 that as the petitioner worked from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002, deducting salary drawn by him for the said period form the ex-gratia amount is unjust and that the same be paid to him. Through proceedings dated 11.10.2002, the request was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. 6. Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents-bank contended that the petitioner is trying to approbate and reprobate by trying to seek the benefits but not accepting the disadvantages emanating from the scheme. He contended that the petitioner should be considered to have retired from service with effect from 31.03.2001 and that the petitioner, therefore, could not be entitled to salary from 01.04.2001. It does not appear from the scheme that an employee opting for the scheme would not be entitled to salary for the period of service rendered beyond the period of retirement under the scheme. 7. As rightly submitted by Smt. K. Udayasri, learned counsel for the petitioner, once work is extracted from an employee, such employee would be entitled to wages for the period of work extracted. It may be assumed that the petitioner retired from service with effect from 31.03.2001. However, admittedly, his services were extracted till 31.03.2002. Consequently, he was paid salary during the said period as he was not brought into the purview of VRS by then. The petitioner was subsequently granted VRS with effect from 31.03.2001. The contention of the learned standing counsel for the respondents is that as the petitioner retired from service from 31.03.2001, he was not entitled to salary from 01.04.2001; and that the salary received by the petitioner from 01.04.2001 till 31.03.2002 consequently was deducted from the ex-gratia payable to the petitioner. This view cannot be accepted. When work is extracted from an employee, salary is liable to be paid. 8. This view cannot be accepted. When work is extracted from an employee, salary is liable to be paid. 8. It would appear that it is the respondents who are trying to approbate and reprobate extracting the work from the petitioner on the one side and denying salary to the petitioner for the period of such work on the other side. It might be true that the petitioner retired from service with effect from 31.03.2001. However, work was extracted from the petitioner from 01.04.2001 till 31.03.2002 also. The respondents are bound to pay salary for the period during which work was extracted from the petitioner. Consequently, salary was paid to the petitioner. The respondents cannot now turn round and claim that the petitioner was not entitled to salary from 01.04.2001 till 31.03.2002 on the ground that he retired from service during 31.03.2001 and deduct the amounts paid by the bank to the petitioner towards salary of the petitioner from the ex-gratia payable to the petitioner under VRS. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also attacked the attitude of the respondents contending that imposing the conditions through proceedings dated 16.03.2002 is against the public policy. Her case is that there is no condition in VRS for foregoing salary for the period of actual service. Even otherwise, such a condition certainly is not in tune with the public policy and would have been violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as it would deprive salary for the period of service rendered by him. Consequently, the very conditions imposed by the petitioner are liable to be ignored. 10. The learned counsel standing counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner voluntarily agreed for the conditions and that the petitioner cannot now question the same. The petitioner, on the other hand, submits that there was no alternative for the petitioner except to accept the conditions in order to obtain voluntary retirement and that such compulsive acceptance of the conditions is not binding on the petitioner. The petitioner is not an illiterate employee. He was Deputy Manager. Accepting the conditions even without a rider that the petitioner was reserving his rights while accepting the conditions is tantamount to freely accepting the conditions prescribed by the respondents. The petitioners, consequently, cannot now claim that the condition is not enforceable as it was accepted by the petitioner on account of compulsion. 11. He was Deputy Manager. Accepting the conditions even without a rider that the petitioner was reserving his rights while accepting the conditions is tantamount to freely accepting the conditions prescribed by the respondents. The petitioners, consequently, cannot now claim that the condition is not enforceable as it was accepted by the petitioner on account of compulsion. 11. However, two circumstances are evident. First, there is no provision in the scheme that no salary would be paid for the period of service rendered by the employee beyond the period of retirement under VRS. Consequently, the very condition is against the public policy as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the acceptance of the condition of the petitioner is irrelevant in determining the rights of the petitioner. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner rendered services from 01.04.2001 till 31.03.2003. The petitioner consequently is entitled to salary during the said period. Admittedly, salary was paid to him during this period. Now, the respondents cannot deduct the same from the ex-gratia that is payable to the petitioner. The petitioner is accordingly entitled to the relief prayed for. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the amount deducted from the ex-gratia towards the salary of the petitioner from 01.04.2001 till 31.03.2002 to the petitioner within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount attracts interest at 9% per annum from today. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.