JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.9190 of 2011 dated 02.12.2010. 2. Heard Sri K.Lakshmi Narayana, learned counsel appearing for appellant-bank and Sri J.Ch.Y.Narasimham, learned counsel for respondent. 3. The facts of the case in nutshell are that respondent was working as Deputy General Manager Grade-VI in appellant-bank and during the course of employment, he had worked in Foreign posting from 31.12.1993 to 07.07.1997. The respondent had executed an agreement dated 24.08.1993 and another agreement dated 29.12.1993 and as per the terms of the agreement, dated 29.12.1993, respondent agreed to work for a period of five years in India after foreign posting and in default, to pay liquidated damages of Rs.7.50 lakhs. The respondent returned to India on 07.07.1997 after rendering services in foreign posting and worked till his retirement. 4. Appellant-Bank introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) vide Circular dated 01.11.2000 and pursuant to the said scheme, respondent made an application on 24.11.2000 for voluntary retirement and the respondent addressed a letter dated 29.12.2000, followed by another letter dated 01.01.2001, wherein the respondent requested the appellant-bank to waive the bond condition or in alternative, to accept pro-rata bond amount, which comes to Rs.93,750/-. The respondent clarified that the total bond period is eight years and he had completed seven years of service and only one year service is left over, for which pro-rata amount towards liquidated damages comes to Rs.93,750/-. The appellant-bank vide letter dated 01.01.2001 accepted the application of the respondent for voluntary retirement under the VRS scheme, without stipulating any conditions. Respondent addressed another letter on 13.03.2001 once again requesting the appellant-bank not to recover the full bond amount and accept pro-rata amount of Rs.93,750/-. However, the appellant-bank vide communicated dated 28.04.2001 declined the request of the respondent for recovery of the amount on pro-rata basis. 5. Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed W.P.No.9190 of 2001 and contended that the appellant-bank has no jurisdiction to add further conditions to the existing conditions in the scheme and having accepted voluntarily retirement, appellant-bank cannot later burden the respondent with any mandatory liability. 6. The appellant-bank opposed the request and contended that no cause of action arose at Hyderabad and therefore, the writ petition before erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not maintainable. 6. The appellant-bank opposed the request and contended that no cause of action arose at Hyderabad and therefore, the writ petition before erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not maintainable. It is further contended that respondent applied for voluntary retirement subject to acceptance of terms and conditions of the scheme and had received an amount of Rs.12,76,440/- apart from normal terminal benefits. Therefore, his liability to pay the liquidated damages of Rs.7.5 lakhs under the agreement, dated 29.12.1993 was not absorbed by the voluntary retirement since the same is subject to fulfilment of terms of bond. Under the Circular dated 01.11.2000, the Board of Directors of appellant-bank are empowered to waive the conditions of ineligibility subject to fulfilment of bond or other requirements. 7. Learned single Judge, having considered the contentions put-forth by both the parties, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant-bank to deduct only the amounts offered by the petitioner in his letters dated 01.01.2001 and 13.03.2001 and no other amounts. Learned single Judge further observed that appellant-bank was permitted to recover a sum of Rs.93,750/- from the amounts due and payable to the respondent on his voluntary retirement, however, shall not be entitled to recover any further amounts under agreement dated 29.12.1993. 8. Learned counsel for appellant-bank has contended that as per the terms of agreement dated 29.12.1993, the respondent agreed to work for a period of five years of service in India after foreign posting and therefore, the respondent was bound to fulfil the terms of the agreement. It is further contended that admittedly, respondent did not fulfil the terms of agreement and had rendered only 3½ years of service in India after foreign posting as against mandatory period of five years, therefore, learned single Judge ought not to have directed the appellant-bank to recover only the pro-rata amount. He further contended that while accepting the application of respondent for voluntary retirement, the appellant-bank did not waive any condition and therefore, the respondent is bound to fulfil the terms of the bond and as such, impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is contrary to the terms of agreement as well as VRS scheme and, therefore, liable to be set aside. 9. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent had contended that respondent applied for voluntary retirement pursuant to the Bank’s Voluntary Retirement Scheme as per Circular dated 01.01.2000 and he had also submitted two letters dated 29.12.2000 and 01.01.2001, wherein the respondent requested the appellant-bank to recover the liquidated damages on pro-rata basis. Learned counsel for respondent specifically referred to letter dated 01.01.2001, by which the application dated 24.11.2000 submitted by the respondent for voluntary retirement was accepted by the appellant-bank and pointed out that no conditions have been specified therein. He further contended that appellant-bank declined the request of respondent for recovery of liquidated damages on pro-rata basis vide proceedings dated 28.04.2001, which is after submission of two request letters dated 29.12.2000 and 01.01.2001 by the respondent, without assigning any reasons, except saying that request of the respondent was declined and finally contended that there are no merits in the writ appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 10. It is undisputed fact that respondent had executed two agreements dated 24.08.1993 and 29.12.1993, wherein he has agreed to render five years of service in India after return from foreign posting, failing which, he had agreed to pay liquidated damages of Rs.7.50 lakhs under agreement dated 29.12.1993. The respondent worked in a foreign service from 31.12.1993 to 07.07.1997 and after return, he has rendered three years and six months in India. The respondent supposed to render service for a period of five years in India after foreign posting and admittedly, respondent rendered only 3½ years of service in India, as against mandatory period of five years, leaving balance of 1½ year. The respondent applied for voluntary retirement under VRS scheme vide letter dated 24.11.2000 and addressed letter dated 29.12.2000, followed by another letter dated 01.01.2001, wherein the respondent requested the appellant-bank to recover the liquidated damages on pro-rata basis and as per his calculation, the said amount comes to Rs.93,750/-. 11. It is apt to refer to clauses 8 and 12 of the agreement dated 29.12.1993: “8. 11. It is apt to refer to clauses 8 and 12 of the agreement dated 29.12.1993: “8. Immediately on completion of the service abroad the employee hereby undertakes, consents and agrees to resume his duties and to serve the bank, for a minimum period of five years at any of its office or branches opened or hereafter to be opened or at any other place in India or anywhere outside India where his services may be required by the bank, upon the terms and conditions, including condition regarding salary and remuneration applicable to the Grade in which he is for the time being employed or if there is no such Grade which he holds as the bank may fix in its absolute discretion according to its estimate of the merits and ability displayed by the employee during the course of his service abroad. ... 12. If at any time during his service abroad or during the said period of five years after completion of the service abroad the employee fails to serve the Bank, or his services are terminated for any reason whatsoever or if the employee voluntarily leaves the bank for any reason whatsoever the employee agrees and binds himself a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. Such payment shall be without prejudice to any other rights and remedies of the bank against the employee.” 12. It is pertinent to note that application dated 24.11.2000 submitted by the respondent for voluntary retirement was accepted by the appellant-bank vide its letter dated 01.01.2001, however, there is no reference of the letters dated 24.11.2000 and 01.01.2001 submitted by the respondent for recovery of liquidated damages on pro-rata basis. It is also relevant to note that respondent has rendered 30 years of service and also rendered 3½ years of service in India after service in abroad as against mandatory period of five years and as such, the appellant-bank ought not to have rejected the request of the respondent for recovery of damages on pro-rata basis. Therefore, rejection of the request of respondent for recovery of liquidated damages on pro-rata basis vide proceedings dated 28.12.2001 is unsustainable and further, no reasons have been assigned for such rejection. However, learned single Judge committed error in directing the appellant-bank to recover the amounts on pro-rata basis as per the calculation of the respondent. 13. Therefore, rejection of the request of respondent for recovery of liquidated damages on pro-rata basis vide proceedings dated 28.12.2001 is unsustainable and further, no reasons have been assigned for such rejection. However, learned single Judge committed error in directing the appellant-bank to recover the amounts on pro-rata basis as per the calculation of the respondent. 13. As mentioned supra, respondent had agreed to render five years of service in India after foreign posting and admittedly, the respondent had rendered only 3½ years of service in India after foreign posting. Therefore, the respondent still has to complete 1½ year of service in India and not one year as projected by the respondent. As per clauses 8 and 12 of the agreement dated 29.04.1993, the respondent had agreed to render five years of service in India after foreign posting mandatorily. The agreement dated 29.04.1993 does not speak about the length of service in abroad. Therefore, respondent has to render five years mandatory service in India irrespective of length of service in abroad and as such, the calculation made by the respondent that he was to render only one year service in India, is incorrect. The respondent agreed to pay Rs.7.50 lakhs in default of five years mandatory service in India, which works out to Rs.1,50,000/- per day. Hence, pro-rata liquidated damages for 1½ year works out to Rs.2,25,000/-. 14. In the light of facts and circumstances of the case and discussion, this Court is of the considered view that learned single Judge has not committed error in permitting the appellantbank to recover the liquidated damages on pro-rata basis. However, the learned single Judge erred in directing the appellant-bank to accept Rs.93,750/-, which was wrongly projected by the respondent, therefore, this portion of the order requires interference by this Court. As mentioned above, the prorata damages for the balance period of 1½ year comes to Rs.2,25,000/- and therefore, the appellant-Bank can be permitted to recover a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- from the respondent. 15. Accordingly, Writ Appeal is disposed of directing the appellant-Bank to recover a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- in lieu of unrendered service of 1½ year. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.