K.KALYANI,HYD AND 3 OTH vs MD, CDO HRD DEPT, MUMBAI AND 5 OTH
- Court
- High Court for the State of Telangana
*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+W.P.No.13509 OF 2002
% 06-05-2026
# Smt.K.Kalyani and others.
….petitioners
Vs.
$ The Managing Director & CDO
HRD Department and others.
…. Respondents
!Counsel for the petitioners : Sri K.V.V.Vedantha Charya
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri V.V.S.S.R.Anjaneyulu.
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
(2020) 6 SCC 438
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
W.P.No.13509 OF 2002
Between:
Smt.K.Kalyani and others.
….petitioners
Vs.
The Managing Director & CDO
HRD Department and others.
…. Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 06.05.2026
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Date : 06.05.2026
WRIT PETITION No.13509 of 2002
Between :
Smt.K.Kalyani and others.
.. Petitioners
AND
The Managing Director & CDO
HRD Department and others.
.. Respondents
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed declaring the letters dated
29.03.2001 and 06.11.2001 passed by the respondents
respectively as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently
direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.9,48,474/-
to the petitioners under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme
(for short ‘VRS’) pertaining to late Sri K.S.R.Sastry.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-
4
st
(a) Sri K.S.R.Sastry, who is the husband of the 1
petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 4 joined in the
service of the respondents’ Bank on 09.11.1971 and died
on 27.02.2001.
(b) The State Bank of India announced VRS for its
employees, vide Circular No.Per/39/200-2001, dated
30.12.2000, who have put in 15 years of service or have
completed 40 years of age as on 31.12.2000.
Mr.K.S.R.Sastry (hereinafter referred to as ‘the applicant’)
applied for VRS on 15.01.2001 and his application was
sent to the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India,
Hyderabad Circle through Branch Manager, Fathekhanpet
Branch, State Bank of India, Nellore.
(c) The Branch Manager, after a discrete enquiry,
found that the applicant was eligible for making the
application for VRS and accordingly the application of the
applicant was forwarded to the Deputy General Manager
and Circle Development Officer, who accepted the said
application and communicated the same to the Branch
5
Manager, S.B.I., Fatekhanpet Branch, Nellore, vide Sl.No.2,
dated 03.03.2001. However, the applicant died on
27.02.2001 due to a heart attack, and the same was
informed to the Branch Manager, Fathekhanpet Branch,
Nellore.
st
(d) On 18.03.2001, the 1 petitioner made an
application to the Branch Manager requesting payment of
the benefits accrued under VRS and other benefits
pertaining to the applicant. The Assistant Manager,
Region-II, Zonal Office, Tirupathi, vide proceedings
29.03.2001, stated that the effective date of retirement
under VRS was 31.03.2001 and that the VRS application of
the applicant has become invalid; therefore, the same
cannot be considered.
st
(e) The 1 petitioner again addressed a letter dated
th
01.06.2001 to the 6 respondent stating that once the
application for VRS was accepted and the applicant is no
more, the benefits have to be extended to the heirs of the
deceased employee. The Branch Manager replied on
6
16.11.2001, stating that, since the applicant’s death
occurred before the relevant date i.e., 31.03.2001, the VRS
application became invalid and cannot be considered under
SBI VRS. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is
filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that the applicant made an application on 15.01.2001
seeking VRS and that the applicant died on 27.02.2001
due to a heart attack. The respondents are bound to
accept the applicant’s application, since the applicant
made the application before the relevant date. However,
the respondents refused to accept the VRS application.
Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition
by setting aside the impugned proceedings and directing
the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.9,48,474/- to the
petitioners under VRS, as they are the legal heirs of the
applicant.
4. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating as
follows :-
7
(a) The applicant joined the service of the
Respondent Bank in the year 1971 and continued till his
death on 27.2.2001. The State Bank of India announced
VRS for its employees vide Circular Per/39/2000-2001
dated 30.12.2000.
(b) The applicant made an application to the Deputy
General Manager and Circle Development Officer, Local
Head Office, Hyderabad, on 15.01.2001 seeking VRS and
the same was forwarded to the Assistant General Manager,
Region-II, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Tirupati, on
15.1.2001 for acceptance as per Circular No.Per/39/2000-
2001, dated 30.12.2000.
(c) The branch has received a list showing the
status of VRS Applications dated 03.03.2001 for issuing
suitable letters to the optees, wherein the name of the
applicant is included and status as accepted with a remark
'DIED’ in red ink and rounding off Sl.No.2. The acceptance
letter was not served on the applicant, as it was not
8
received from the controlling authority, as the applicant
died on 27.02.2001.
st
(d) The 1 petitioner submitted an application on
18.03.2001 to consider her husband's case under SBI-VRS
as he had submitted his application on 15.01.2001, before
the cut-off date and his name was included in the accepted
VRS application list. The said application was forwarded to
the Controlling Authority on 19.03.2001, and a reply was
received from the Controlling Authority, wherein it was
stated that the effective date of retirement under SBI-VRS
was 31.03.2001 and, as such, the applicant’s application
has become invalid and cannot be considered. The same
st
was communicated to the 1 petitioner vide letter dated
10.04.2001. As per the service Rules, terminal benefits
were settled and paid to the petitioners. Hence, the writ
petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits
that the applicant died on 27.02.2001 before completion of
9
the VRS process. The competent authority declared
31.03.2001 as the relevant date for SBI VRS. The SBI VRS
is contractual in nature and separate and distinct from the
terms and conditions, governing the services of SBI
employees.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further
submits that the application submitted by various
employees who opted for retirement in terms of SBI VRS
was an offer made by the employees of SBI. If the offer
made by the employee is accepted by the competent
authority of the Bank in terms of SBI VRS, then only an
employee can retire in accordance with SBI VRS.
7. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and
others v. Sanjiv Kalra and others (Civil Appeal No.3561-
65 of 2002, dated 17.12.2002), wherein the Apex Court
held as follows :-
10
"We, therefore have no hesitation in coming to
the conclusion that the voluntary scheme was not a
proposal or an offer but merely an invitation to treat
and the applications filed by the employees
constituted "offer".
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further
submits that in paragraph 7 of the SBI VRS application, it
is specifically stated that no voluntary retirement shall be
deemed to have come into effect unless the decision of the
competent authority has been communicated in writing. In
para No.5 of the application submitted by the
applicant, it is stated as follows :-
"I am aware that no voluntary retirement under SBI
VRS shall be deemed to have come into effect unless
the decision of the competent authority as to the
acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement
has been communicated in writing and I have been
relieved from my duties to the satisfaction of the
Bank"
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further
submits that in terms of the Central Board Memorandum
dated 26.12.2000 and the Resolution of the Central Board,
11
dated 27.12.2000, the competent authority declared
31.03.2001 as the effective date of retirement.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
further submits that under SBI VRS, an employee who had
opted for retirement in terms of SBI VRS must have been in
service of the Bank and alive as on 31.03.2001. Further,
unless and until the acceptance of the application
submitted by a particular employee was communicated to
the employee concerned, he would not have been entitled to
retire under the SBI VRS. Even if such acceptance was
communicated to the employee concerned, the effective
date of retirement was 31.03.2001.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents further
submits that the acceptance of the application was never
communicated to the applicant before his death. Therefore,
no right had accrued in favour of the applicant to seek
retirement under the SBI VRS. Even if the acceptance had
been communicated to the applicant, since he expired before
31.03.2001, he was not entitled to retire under the SBI VRS
12
before 31.3.2001. Therefore, the petitioners have no right to
claim benefits under the SBI VRS.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
further submits that the respondents have rightly passed
the impugned orders and there are no grounds to interfere
with the same. Therefore, the writ petition lacks merit and
is liable to be dismissed.
13. Heard Sri K.V.V.Vedantha Charya, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.V.S.S.R.Anjaneyulu,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the
record.
14. The question involved in the present writ petition is
whether, when the deceased employee applied for the
Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) and subsequently
expired, the legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased
employee are eligible to receive benefits of Rs.9,48,474/-
under the VRS scheme.
13
15. As per the averments and arguments of both
counsel, the respondent authorities announced the VRS for
its employees vide Circular No.Per/39/200-2001, dated
30.12.2000, who have put in 15 years of service or have
completed 40 years of age as on 31.12.2000. The deceased
employee applied for VRS on 15.01.2001, and his
application was forwarded to the Deputy General Manager,
State Bank of India, Hyderabad Circle, through the Branch
Manager, Fathekhanpet Branch, State Bank of India,
Nellore. The Branch Manager found that the applicant was
eligible for making the application for VRS and accordingly
the application of the applicant was forwarded to the
Deputy General Manager and Circle Development Officer,
who accepted the said application and communicated the
same to the Branch Manager, S.B.I., Fatekhanpet Branch,
Nellore, vide Sl.No.2, dated 03.03.2001. However, in the
interregnum, the applicant died on 27.02.2001 due to a
heart attack and the same was informed to the Branch
14
Manager, Fathekhanpet Branch, Nellore, and
subsequently, submitted the death certificate.
st
16. On 18.03.2001, the 1 petitioner made an application
to the Branch Manager requesting payment of the benefits
accrued under VRS and other benefits pertaining to the
applicant. The Assistant Manager, Region-II, Zonal Office,
Tirupathi, vide proceedings dated 29.03.2001, stated that
the effective date of retirement under VRS was 31.03.2001
and that the VRS application of the applicant has become
invalid; therefore, the same cannot be considered.
st
17. The 1 petitioner again addressed a letter dated
th
01.06.2001 to the 6 respondent stating that once the
application for VRS is accepted and the applicant is no
more, the benefits have to be extended to the legal heirs of
the deceased employee, and the cut-off date fixed by the
employer is not the criteria. It is also stated that, in similar
cases, the other Nationalized Banks are extending the
benefits accrued under the Scheme to the deceased’s legal
heirs.
15
18. The Branch Manager gave a reply on 16.11.2001
reiterating the same contentions as stated in the earlier
letter that since the death of the applicant is before the
relevant date i.e., 31.03.2001, the VRS application became
invalid and the same cannot be considered under SBI VRS.
19. To support the contention that other
Nationalized banks considered similar cases, learned
counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this
Court, the Clauses of State Bank of Hyderabad
(Employees’) Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2001. In the
said Scheme, Clause No. 11.13 reads as follows :-
“In the event of the death of an employee
whose request for voluntary retirement under the
scheme has been accepted, the ex-gratia which
would have become due and payable to the
deceased employee will be paid to the legal heirs of
the deceased employee on submission of claim
papers and on completion of all the laid down
formalities.”.
20. The present case is almost similar to the
aforementioned clause. In the instant case, the applicant
16
submitted an application for VRS on 15.01.2001. As per
the conditions, the withdrawal period from the scheme had
also ended. After a thorough scrutiny, the applicant’s
application was accepted, and the concerned Branch
Manager was duly informed. The only remaining issue is
that the applicant had not yet availed the benefits of the
VRS scheme. According to the Service Rules, an employee
who opts for retirement must have been in service as of
31.03.2001. Unfortunately, the applicant passed away on
27.02.2001, just one month prior to the prescribed date,
due to a heart attack. However, the respondent authorities
did not consider the case of the applicant as eligible for the
VRS benefits.
21. When a VRS application filed by an applicant has not
been scrutinized and is not yet accepted by the
respondents, this Court can accept the contentions of the
respondent authorities in the event of the applicant’s
death. However, in the present case, the applicant had
applied for VRS, the withdrawal period had already
17
expired, and the application had been scrutinized and
accepted, and the same was informed to the concerned
Branch. At that juncture, the applicant passed away. In
these circumstances, this Court feels that the denial of
VRS benefits to the petitioners cannot be justified.
22. Moreover, as stated supra regarding the State Bank
of Hyderabad (Employees’) Voluntary Retirement Scheme-
2001, in the event of the death of an employee, the benefits
are payable to the legal heirs of the deceased employee.
This was a proper decision by the then State Bank of
Hyderabad, which has now merged with SBI.
23. For the VRS scheme, all nationalized banks are
required to follow a uniform methodology for the
consideration of VRS applications. In the present case, the
petitioners contend that some nationalized banks have
accepted similar cases, whereas the respondents have not
considered their claim.
18
24. In the present case, all formalities had been
completed, and the applicant was to receive the benefits
after one month. However, the applicant died due to a
heart attack. The death of an individual cannot be
predicted, and the same situation occurred in the present
case. Between the applicant’s death and the prescribed
date, only one month remained. Under these
circumstances, the petitioners’ claim can be considered.
25. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the Apex Court three bench
judgment in ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND
1
OTHERS Vs. RADHEY SHYAM PANDEY and with regard
to the non-following of the uniform rules, the Apex Court in
para Nos.55 and 56 held as follows :-
“55. Once it approved the scheme, SBI being an
instrumentality of the State under Article 12, is bound
by the principle of fairness and representation made
that it accepted the contents of memorandum and the
scheme floated by IBA and invited the applications
based on approving the memorandum which
1
(2020) 6 Supreme Court Cases 438
19
contained proposal of pension on rendering 15 years
of permanent pensionable service, it could not later on
wriggle out of its obligation taking a rigmarole by
claiming shelter of the Rules or by not amending the
Rules or by issuing a clarification which was fanciful,
irrational and contrary to the spirit of the resolution of
the Board. It would amount to an unfair and
unreasonable action to deprive the employees of the
benefit of pension because of the decision taken by
the Central Board of Directors.
56. SBI is bound by resolution of Central Board of
Directors. The Scheme was with the approval of the
Government of India and accepted, implemented by
all the banks in true spirit except by SBI. It cannot be
permitted to act unfairly by virtue of having superior
bargaining power by issuing vague clarification to the
detriment of the economic interest of the employees.
Clarification did not have the effect of rewriting or
superseding the resolution of the Central Board nor
effect of making modifications in the resolution
passed by the Central Board of the SBI”.
26. The above observation of the Apex Court
supports the petitioners’ contention. All nationalized banks
are required to follow the same procedure. In the present
case, the entire exercise was completed; however, the
20
applicant was yet to enjoy the benefits of the said scheme
and, unfortunately, passed away less than one month
before the prescribed date.
27. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
for the respondents relied upon the judgment of the Apex
Court in STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Vs. PRAKASH CHAND (Civil Appeal No.977 of 2019 dated
17.01.2019). In the said case, the Apex Court held that it
was not open to the High Court to re-write the terms of the
policy. But the present case is in no way concerned with
the above mentioned issue. In the instant case, the High
Court is not re-writing the terms of the policy.
28. In the case at hand, this Court is relying solely upon
the judgment of the three-judge Bench of the Apex Court (1
supra), wherein the Apex Court held that the Scheme was
introduced by the Government of India and accepted and
implemented by all the banks in the true spirit, except by
SBI. The Apex Court also found fault to that extent.
21
29. In the said circumstances, this Court feels that the
petitioners’ case can be considered for granting VRS
scheme benefits, as they are the legal heirs of the
applicant. As contended by the respondents, under the
Service Rules, terminal benefits have already been settled
and paid to the petitioners.
30. In the instant case, the petitioners are claiming an
amount of Rs. 9,48,474/- under the VRS. If any amount
has already been paid to the petitioners, the respondent
authorities may deduct the same and pay the remaining
amount to them.
31. In view of the foregoing circumstances and
discussions, and keeping in view the judgment of the Apex
Court (1 supra), the petitioners are entitled to receive the
benefits of the deceased employee under the VRS scheme.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the amount
to the petitioners under the VRS scheme, after deducting
the amount if any paid, within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
22
32. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed
of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
06.05.2026
Prv
Note:
1.L.R.Copy to be marked
2. Issue C.C. in one week.
(B/o)
Prv