Utilization of voluntary retirement benefits estops challenging retirement, regardless of prior withdrawal or acceptance under protest. Facts: The appellant, a tube-well operator with over 20 years of service, applied for voluntary retirement in 1997. He subsequently withdrew this application on December 12, 1997, before it was accepted. Despite the withdrawal, the respondent authority accepted his voluntary retirement nearly a year later, on December 2, 1998. The appellant received and utilized retirement benefits totaling ₹5,81,202, though he claimed to have accepted the amount "under protest." He challenged the retirement order in the High Court, seeking reinstatement. Issue: Whether an employee is entitled to challenge the acceptance of a voluntary retirement application that was withdrawn before acceptance, if they have subsequently accepted and utilized the financial benefits of the retirement scheme. Decision: The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge's decision. The Court held that once an employee accepts and utilizes the financial benefits (ex-gratia payments) under a voluntary retirement scheme, they are precluded from challenging the retirement, regardless of whether the application was previously withdrawn or the benefits were accepted "under protest." Reasoning: 1. Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate: Relying on *Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar* and *Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel*, the Court held that a voluntary retirement scheme is contractual. An employee cannot "approbate and reprobate" by taking the financial benefits of a contract and simultaneously seeking to void it. 2. Utilization as Estoppel: While an employee generally has the right to withdraw a retirement notice before it becomes effective, this right is lost if they subsequently utilize the disbursed benefits. The act of utilizing the funds constitutes an acceptance of the cessation of the employer-employee relationship. 3. Protest is Immaterial: The Court clarified that accepting benefits "under protest" does not safeguard the employee's right to challenge the retirement if those benefits are actually utilized for personal use. 4. Equity and Financial Burden: Granting reinstatement after the utilization of substantial ex-gratia payments would impose an unfair financial burden on the employer, especially when the employee has not performed duties for the intervening period.

The appellant, a tube-well operator with over 20 years of service, applied for the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) on 09.10.1997, allegedly under the impression that he could purchase the tube-well

Realizing no such purchase scheme existed, he withdrew his VRS application via letters dated 12.12.1997 and 09.07.1998

Despite the withdrawal, the respondent authorities accepted his VRS on 02.12.1998

The appellant challenged this acceptance in the High Court. While the initial Single Judge order in 2009 favored the appellant, the matter was remanded by a Division Bench in 2015

Upon remand, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 03.03.2016, noting that the appellant had received and utilized retirement benefits totaling ₹5,81,202/-, albeit "under protest"

The appellant’s legal heirs pursued this Letters Patent Appeal following his death

1. Whether an employee is entitled to withdraw a voluntary retirement application before its formal acceptance by the employer

2. Whether the acceptance and utilization of retirement benefits "under protest" estops an employee from challenging the validity of the retirement under the principle of "approbate and reprobate"

The court applied the principle from Balram Gupta v. Union of India, which establishes that a notice for voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective

However, this is qualified by the doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" as elucidated in Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar, which holds that employees who accept and utilize ex-gratia payments or benefits under a contractual VRS scheme cannot later resile from the arrangement

The court further relied on Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel, asserting that the utilization of deposited benefits constitutes an act that precludes the employee from challenging the cessation of the jural relationship

The court observed that while the appellant had technically withdrawn his VRS application before the respondents formally accepted it on 02.12.1998, his subsequent conduct was determinative

The respondents argued, and the court accepted, that the appellant had received a total of ₹5,81,202/- in retirement benefits and utilized these funds for personal use

The court distinguished the present case from precedents where funds were merely deposited but not utilized

Although the appellant claimed the funds were accepted "under protest," the court held that the act of utilization created a "Golden Handshake" effect, terminating the employer-employee relationship

The court rejected the applicability of the Delhi High Court’s view in Kuldip Gandotra, prioritizing the Supreme Court's stance that an employee cannot simultaneously enjoy the financial fruits of a retirement scheme and challenge its validity

The court held that because the appellant had utilized the retirement benefits, he was legally barred from resiling from the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, regardless of the prior withdrawal of his application

No further relief or reinstatement was granted