Justice (R) Ch. Muhammad Arif, Chairman.--In this appeal under Section 2-A read with Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, a challenge has been made to order dated 19.7.2003 of the Respondent SME Bank Ltd, whereby Mr. Zafar Iqbal-Appellant was relieved from the service of the Respondents-Bank as a result of the acceptance of his opinion for Voluntary Separation Scheme, VSS for short, despite the fact that the option was withdrawn by the Appellant, against which he made a departmental appeal and the same remaining unresponded within the statutory period of ninety days, the instant Appeal was resorted to on 11.11.2003. The prayer clause contains averments for acceptance of the appeal with cost; setting aside of the impugned order of acceptance of the option of the Appellant under VSS by declaring it as illegal and unlawful and for the reinstatement in service of the appellant, with consequential back benefits. Alternatively it was prayed that the respondent Bank be directed to accept the option of the appellant dated 12.2.2003 so as to save him from an unfair financial hardship.
2. The case of the Respondent-Bank can be culled out from their preliminary Objections No, 1, that the Appellant has no locus standi to file the instant Appeal No, 2, that the Appellant's stand point is fallacious and delusive besides, being shorn of factual and legal transparency and No, 3; that the instant Appeal is not maintainable in that no right of the appellant, guaranteed or secured by or under any law has been infringed.
3. The respondent Bank had floated 1st VSS on 7.6.2000 and employees were required to exercise their option between 5.6.2000 and 24.6.2000. It was stipulated therein that once the option form is submitted to the Competent Authority, it will not fall for withdrawal, thereafter. The main stay of the case of the respondents was that the appellant having exercised his option on 24.6.2000, the same became irrevocable, for all intents and purposes.
4. Respondents' written comments 'On Facts', Paras 1-12, make the following reading:-- "1. This paragraph does not warrant any comment; it is matter of record.
2. Admitted to the extent that the appellant was promoted in the normal course of the promotion process on the basis of his seniority-cum-fitness.
3. Admitted to the extent that performance of duty by an employee effectively and diligently is the normal incidence of employment of which the appellant was not an execution.
4. Admitted to the extent of the merger of SBFC and RDFC as a result of the RDFC and SBFC (Amalgamation and Conversion) Ordinance 2001. In terms of Section 7 thereof all permanent employees of RDFC and SBFC who had at least one year's service immediately before the effective date stood transferred to the Respondent Bank on the same terms and conditions.
5. This paragraph does not warrant any comment as the quality of annual rating in appellant's ACRs has no bearing on the option exercised by him under VSS.
6. No comment on this paragraph is warranted in that the matter is pending judicial scruinty before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
7&8. Not admitted being incorrect. The services of the appellant were terminated on 1.12.2000.
However on his request dated 12.2.2001 for review of the order of termination, the Competent Authority, taking compassionate view, re-instated the appellant in service of SBFC (Defunct) w,e,f, the date of termination.
9. Not admitted as phrased. The Respondent Bank had floated Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) on 7.6.2000 and employees were required to exercise option from 5.6.2000 to 24.6.2000. It was the essence of VSS that the option form once submitted could not be withdrawn. The appellant had exercised option of his free will and volition without any extraneous pressure on 24.6.2000, which became irrevocable. It is the settled law laid down by this Hon'ble Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that if option is exercised in furtherance of a Voluntary Separation Scheme, which does not envisage its withdrawal, it cannot be retrieved in any circumstance. The VSS had further provided that the benefits under the scheme would not be available to employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending except if the employee concerned opts in time in favour of the scheme and is exonerated of the charges or the charges are withdrawn or the conduct leading to the action against such employee is condoned by the Competent Authority, thus allowing the employee concerned the benefits of the scheme. In furtherance of the disciplinary proceedings held against the appellant for irregularities committed by him in two loan Accounts Nos, 1674 and 1311 disbursed at Multan, the President of the Respondent Bank decided on 14.7.2003 that the appellant may be relieved under VSS after retaining principal outstanding amount in loan Account No, 1311. The amount will be retained as security till adjustment of the loan within one year of the date of relieving under VSS. The appellant was accordingly relieved through order dated 19.7.2003.
10.This paragraph had no bearing on the option exercised by the appellant for early severance under the aforesaid VSS.
11.Not admitted in its present form. The termination of services of the appellant on 1.12.2000 notwithstanding, on his request, the Competent Authority had on compassionate grounds re- instated him in service and the intervening period was treated as leave with pay. It is the settled law laid down by Superior Courts that reinstatement connotes restoration to original position and the employee concerned is entitled upon an order of reinstatement to be put back on the position as if he had never been terminated. In effect reinstatement means that there never had been any severance and as if the employee had continued in service all along. Viewed in the above context, the plea raised in this paragraph is wholly misplaced and unfounded.
12.Not admitted as stated. The appellant had exercised his option of his free will and in terms of the VSS, it had become irrevocable. No right of the appellant guaranteed or secured under any law had been infracted and as such the present appeal is not maintainable."
5. As regards the grounds in the memo of appeal, the same at Serial Nos, 1 to 9 and 12 were not admitted whereas, about 10 and 11 it was, respectively, pleased as under:-- "10This paragraph tends to confuse the position. The appellant has not enclosed with the appeal the so-called option dated 12.2.2001. If this option related to the 2nd VSS in contradistinction to the 1st VSS under which he had exercised his irrevocable option, it was not tenable. Placed as the appellant was, he could not be permitted to exercise option for more than one VSS."
"11This paragraph does not warrant any comment. It seems to have been added to adorn the appeal with some sort of `ostentation' or 'exaltation'.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, learned counsel for the Appellant, has meticulously dealt with the memo of appeal regarding facts and grounds pleaded therein. According to him, the option was revoked before the expiry of the date of acceptance and the withdrawal of the option being one of the rights, available to his client, he was entitled to tinker therewith until the expiry of the outer limit regarding acceptance of the same. In, support of his contention, he cited FST judgments dated 11.12.2003 and 27.9.2004 in Appeals Nos, 630(R)CE/2003 and 1611(R)CE/2003 respectively whereby the appellants, in similar circumstances had been reinstated with all back benefits on the basis that after introduction of two subsequent.
VS Scheme, the option in the 1st Scheme exercised by the appellants had become redundant after the lapse of several years. He also argued that the reason advanced for the delayed acceptance that disciplinary proceedings, had remained pending against the appellant during the intervening period was not maintainable as no disciplinary proceedings had ever been initiated against the appellant except a preliminary enquiry with regard to some loan accounts. He further argued that in terms of a couple of mandates contained in the Estacode and the note under CSR 465-3, the appellant could withdraw his option on the analogy of withdrawal of resignation or option for voluntary retirement being permissible before its acceptance.
7. Mr. Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti, learned counsel for the respondents has attended to the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and contended that before 19.7.2003 the option having not been revoked under VSS, the Appellant was not possessed of any right in that regard, all over again. He made a reference to Regulation No, 15 of SME Bank, which deals with the matters relating to termination from service on three months' notice and that he was driven to making a request for reinstatement on 12.2.2001. This request was accepted and the interening period treated as leave with pay. He has specifically relied upon judgment dated 23.4.2003 in Appeals Nos, 1, 2 & 3 (R)CS/2002 brought by M/s. Rizwan Ahmed Naseem, Abdul Khaliq & Allah Bachaya against the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. in which to put a long story short, the said Appellant's option, given to a voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme (VGHSS) vide Circular dated 19.8.2002, inviting the employees to opt for the Scheme by 5.9.2002 and' hat the outer limit having further been extended to 12.9.2002, the said appellants' option within the time-frame 'above did not receive any immediate responde from the respondents. In these circumstances, the appellants in the precedent case before the Tribunal, withdrew their options on the ground that they had opted under compulsion due to propaganda in the press that those who would not opt for VGHSS, would loose their jobs. The Respondents-Bank, however, accepted their options vide letter dated 28.12.2002 informing them that they would be relieved from their duties w,e,f, 2.1.2003 "There being no statutory provision for departmental representation/appeal, the appellants have directly filed their service appeals before this Tribunal on 1.1.2003." In this case, the learned counsel for the respondents referred to the precedent titled: Syed Aftab Ahmad and others vs. KE.S.C. and others (1997 SCMR 197) to contend that the proposition that even in the absence of a statutory provision for filing their departmental representation, they came to the Federal Service Tribunal before exhausting the departmental remedy and the Tribunal held that: "We do not find any parallel between withdrawal of options in this case and withdrawal of option of voluntary retirement before acceptance. In the case of voluntary retirement the civil servant concerned gives a particular date for retirement and can withdraw before that date. In this case of Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme no withdrawal was envisaged and no date for acceptance or rejection was indicated. Things were clear to the appellants at the time they exercised their options. We do not find any element of discrimination against the appellants nor any illegality in not acceding to their request for withdrawal. The respondent Bank has clearly stated that none had been allowed to withdraw option and remain in service."
8. In addition to making reference to Regulation No, 15 of SME Bank-above, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank also referred to Section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872 to contend that a substituted contract having taken a beginning and loan Account Nos, 1311 and 1674 afore-referred having been disbursed at Multan, the same could be given effect to in that behalf Reiterating the option made by the appellant on 24.6.2000, he also referred to Ground 10 of the memo of appeal.
The precise contention was that option having been exercised once, the same couldn't be withdrawn, all over again. The option of the Year 2000 having been exercised by the Appellant, its revocation is inconsequential in law. He made a reference to 1994 SCM R 2232 and 2002 SCM R 1034 in support of his clients' case in that behalf.
9. While exercising his right of rebuttal, the learned counsel for the appellate made a specific reference to Sections 5 and 24 of the Contract Act, 1872 for the proposition that as no disciplinary action was pending against his client, he is entitled, as a matter of right, to all the benefits payable to employees of the respondent Bank, placed in similar circumstances.
10.The main stay of the Appellant in the instant litigation is that it was too late in the day for the respondent-Bank to accept his option of VSS dated 24.6.2000, after the lapse of three years, and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. According to him, the option became infructuous after the termination from service of the appellant. This plea need not be considered for the simple reason that in the case titled: Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation, Karachi and Others vs. Abdul Rasheed Soomro and Others (2005 TD (Services) 110), the apex Court has specifically held that within a given discipline, if a VSS and/or Golden Handshake Schemes do not talk of giving any right to the Corporation's employees to withdraw their options made according to the terms and conditions of the said Schemes, the result is obvious that exercise of an option, one way or the other, will hold the field. The plea raised on behalf of the appellant in Ground 4 of the memo of appeal that the act of respondent-Bank of the acceptance of the option of the appellant subsequent to its withdrawal by the appellant is against the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872, is of little help to the Appellant when considered in juxta-position with the exercise of the rights of the Bank within the four corners of the applicable provisions of VSS and the law on the subject. Similar is the position with regard to the precedent cases mentioned in the judgment of the apex Court, relied upon towards the end of Ground 7 of the memo of appeal i,e, "Mrs. Anisa Rehman vs. P.I.A. C. and another" (1994 SCM R 2232) and "Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others vs. Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi and others" (2002 SCM R 1034). There is no cavil with the proposition that nobody can be condemned unheard within the contemplation of the maxim. `Audi Alteram Partem'. It is not the case of the Appellant that he was taken by surprise in the matter of accepting or not of the VSS.
11. Coming to the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we suffice by observing that no case of revocation of proposals, their acceptances or even agreements being void, if considerations and objects are unlawful in part, need be considered in the context of the instant cause. Both the parties are in error in place reliance respectively on Sections 5, 24 and 62 of the Contract Act, 1872. It was the learned counsel for the respondents who relied upon Section 62 of the Contract Act. These Sections Nos, 5, 24 and 62 read thus:-- "5.A proposal may be revoked at any time before the communication of its acceptance is complete as against the proposer, but not afterwards.
An acceptance may be revoked at any , time before the communication of the acceptance is complete as against the acceptor, but not afterwards."
"24. If any part of a single consideration for one or more objects, or any one or any part of any one of several considerations for a single object, is unlawful, the agreement is void".
"62. If the parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for it, or to rescind or alter it, the original contract need not be performed."
A perusal of the above-mentioned sections of the Contract Act (ibid), shows that none of these provisions of the Contract Act is attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Section 5 deals with revocation of proposals and acceptances. Section 24 talks about agreement being void, if considerations and objects are unlawful, even in part, and Section 62 deals with novation, rescission and alteration of contract under the heading: "Contracts which need not be performed". Here, the VSS talks of the exercise of option by employees of the respondent-Bank in relation to the Scheme which deals with the respective rights and obligations of the parties in an affirmative form to the effect that the employees are being given a chance to accept or reject the terms of the Scheme and that, by doing so, they would be made to abide by their option, within the contemplation of the letter and spirit of VSS. A reference to the copy of the Scheme itself clearly shows that, in relation to the "Application", "Withdrawal" and "Final Decision", the respective rights of the Employees of the respondent Bank will be in accord with the contents of the said "Application", "Withdrawal" and "Final Decision", between the Bank and its employees, Clauses (c), (d) and (e) of VSS make the following reading:-- "(c)Application: Employees desirous of participation in this scheme will fill in the pro-printed "Option Form" available with the respective Branch Manager/Regional Head/Divisional Head. The heads of the Branch, Region, Audit Office and Divisions at Head Office are the only persons who are designated as competent authorities for receiving the "Option Forms". However, the Branch Managers, Regional Managers and Divisional Heads at Head Office in case of exercising the option should hand over the options to their next higher authority."
"(d) Withdrawal: Once the "Option Form" has been submitted to the Competent Authority, the same cannot be withdrawn."
"(e) Final Decision: Management reserves the right either to accept or reject at its sole discretion the employee's option application to participate in the scheme."
12.What meets the eye is that the respective arguments by the learned counsel for the parties have lost sight of the fact that what is required to be attended to, in the instant case and other similar matters, is that the respective entitlements of the employees as also the rights of the concerned Corporation/Respondents, have to be kept in view while dealing with the principles applicable under the VSS and/or GHSS/s. 13.The Respondents have taken a particular stand in their objections to the Memo of Appeal, in their pleadings titled 'Preliminary Objections' general and Objection No, 3 in particular, which reads thus: "That the instant appeal is not maintainable in that no right of the appellant guaranteed or secured by or under any law has been infringed. The respondent Bank had floated Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) on 7.6.2000 and employees were required to exercise option from 5.6.2000 to 24.6.2000. It was stipulated therein that once the option form had been submitted the Competent Authority the same could not be withdrawn. The appellant had exercised his option of his free will on 24.6.2000 which became irrevocable."
ON FACTS: On facts it was in reply to Para 9 of the Memo. of appeal that they dealt with the pleadings of the appellant in Para 9, which made the following reading: Not admitted as phrased. The respondent Bank had floated Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) on 7.6.2000 and employees were required to exercise option from 5.6.2000 to 24.6.2000. It was the essence of VSS that the option form once submitted could not be withdrawn. The appellant had exercised option of his free will and volition without any extraneous pressure on 24.6.2000, which became irrevocable. It is the settled law laid down by this Hon'ble Tribunal as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that if option is exercised in furtherance of a Voluntary Separation Scheme, which does not envisage its withdrawal, it cannot be retrieved in any circumstance. The VSS had further provided that the benefits under the scheme would not be available to employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending except if the employee concerned opts in time in favour of the scheme and is exonerated of the charges or the charges are withdrawn or the conduct leading to the action against such employee is condoned by the Competent Authority, thus allowing the employee concerned the benefits of the scheme. In furtherance of the disciplinary proceedings held against the appellant for irregularities committed by him in two loan Accounts Nos, 1'674 and 1311 disbursed at Multan, the President of the Respondent Bank decided on 14.7.2003 that the appellant may be relieved under VSS after retaining principal outstanding amount in loan Account No, 1311. The amount will be retained as security till adjustment to the loan within one year of the date of relieving under VSS. The appellant was accordingly relieved through order dated 19.7.2003."
14. The following VSS optees were proceeded against on disciplinary grounds for committing irregularities:-- 1....................................................
2....................................................
'3. Mr. Zafar lqbal, OG-III: He was proceeded for irregularities, in two loan Accounts Nos, 1674 and 1311, disbursed at Multan. However, in the `wake of preliminary inquiry the President decided that he may be relieved under VSS after retaining principal outstanding amount in loan Account No, 1311 at Multan Branch, where he was credit officer. The amount will be retained as Security till adjustment of loan within one year w,e,f, the date of relieving under VSS.
The above named officers are not required in any other inquiry/disciplinary proceedings pending decision at this division. You are therefore requested to take necessary action in respect of the above named officers as per decision of the President.
It must be ensured that all the financial penalties previously imposed upon them, if any are adjusted from their VSS emoluments also."
15. Their main stay, while dealing with the grounds of Memo of appeal, was that VSS was optional and that the 'employees had the choice in that behalf'. 'The appellant had, after considering the pros and cons of the scheme, exercised his option, which was not at all a fit subject for withdrawal.
The appellant was, accordingly relieved of his duties in accordance with VSS.'
16.It was the last paragraph of grounds, i,e, para 12, in which the treatment meted out to the appellant was once again, reiterated, as below: "Not admitted. The appellant had exercised option of his free will and as such he was relieved of his duty in accordance with the terms of VSS. He should have been conscious of what has been stated in this paragraph before he had opted for the 1st VSS."
17.The FST judgments referred to in para 6 as cited by the learned counsel for the appellant being identical cases have been found to be differentiable. The appellant in Appeal No, 1161(R)CE/2003, Mr. Qaisrani who was cleared for VSS on 14.7.2003 along with Mr. Zafar Iqbal and another after SME President's decision on disciplinary cases against them and also relieved on 19.7.2003 with acceptance of his option after a lapse of 3 years had in fact originally exercised his option a few days later than the cut-off date. In the other case Mr. Muhammad Ali, appellant in Appeal No, 630(R)CE/2003 was not relieved despite his option of 12.6.2000 having been accepted on 5.10.2000 and so informed to be relieved on 7.10.2000. He was retained in service till 3.5.2003 when finally relieved. In the intervening period his performance in locating missing files was appreciated and his application for exercising option for 3rd VSS was duly recommended for acceptance and disciplinary action was also dropped as he was not found involved in the case of missing files.
18.In the instant case, although the appellant withdrew the option exercised for the 1st and 2nd VS Schemes, yet subsequently, he opted for the 3rd Scheme on 7.12.2001 which still stood in the field, thereby repudiating his claim of reinstatement based on revocation of his earlier option stated to have been submitted under official pressure.
19.We have already made a reference to tripartite division of VSS in Para 11 above and are inclined to dismiss the prayer-part of the Appeal that the impugned order of acceptance of the option of the appellant be set aside and he be reinstated with all consequential back benefits, for the short reason that the exercise of the appellant in favour of VSS could not be tinkered with, by him, especially in view of the analysis made in paras 17 and 18 above.
20.With regard, however, to the alternative part of the prayer what appears on the surface is that the employees, similarly placed as the appellant, were offered, in as many as 3 VS Schemes respectively in June 2000, December 2000 and November 2001. The appellant opted for the 1st Scheme on 24.6.2000, which, incidentally was the last date for opting or not ,of the Scheme in that behalf. He also opted for the Second Scheme on 12.2.2001 and the 3rd Scheme on 7.12.2001. During the intervening period, spreading over about 3 years, the appellant, it appears to us, did put up with various situations of the creation of the Respondent-Organization, all of which can be categorized as tentamounting to pressurization of the appellant. More so, when considered in juxta-position with the admitted position that he was made to suffer disciplinary proceedings, twice. Firstly, although he was exonerated by the SBFC till 2000 in the then enquiry, yet the Authorized Officer imposed the punishment of reduction in rank to a lower stage against which he filed an appeal with the Tribunal, which was resolved in 2005 vide FST's judgment dated 28.7.2005. His services were also terminated on 1.12.2000 and, as a result of departmental appeal made on 30.12.2000, he was reinstated by the Appellate Authority on 22.3.2001. The result of this treatment, meted out to the appellant by the Respondent-Bank, cannot be categorized, by him, as being part of coercive measures, resorted to by the Respondent-Bank against him within a month of his reinstatement, he revoked the first two options on 21.4.2001. Be that as it may, in this litigation, we agree, with the proposition that the options regarding VSS -Scheme being irrevocable, no case has been made out as held above in Para 19 to accept his cause for reinstatement.
21.The foregoing exposition of his case has nevertheless got a relevance in consideration of the alternative part of the prayer, as it lends credence to his claim in para 8 (Facts) of his appeal"...that against the order of his illegal and unlawful termination from the service of the SBFC, the appellant filed a departmental appeal before the departmental authority. During the pendency of the departmental appeal, the appellant was telephonically called by the authorities of the SBFC and was forced to sign the two separate options for VSS both dated 12.2.2001 under duress and extreme pressures and threats of dire consequences for extraneous considerations...." and para 6 (Grounds)" ... that the option under reference was exercised by the appellant under extreme pressure as the respondent used the coercive measures and threats for dire consequences...."
These allegations have not been specifically refuted by the respondents except through a mere assertion in their corresponding objection, of not admitted being incorrect" and that "that exercise of the option was of his free will". The argument of coercion thus taints the operational validity of the option for the 1st and 2nd Schemes. That combined with a reference to the conclusion drawn in the Tribunal's judgment of 27.9.2004 in "Mr. Aslam Qaisrani vs. SME Bank" that "the Scheme itself had been superseded by introduction of two subsequent such Schemes the fact of which was not denied by the respondents' gives a considerable weight to the appellant's position as taken by him in his departmental appeal submitted on 29.7.2003, as below"
"3. That ultimately I was reinstated in service through order dated 22.3.2001 and the intervening period of termination and reinstatement was also treated as leave with pay. Smacking the mala fide of the bank functionaries, I vide my application dated 21.4.2001 sent by registered post withdrew my options dated 24.6.2000 and 12.2.2001 (two options). However being more incentive and beneficial, I vide my application dated 7.12.2001 option for VSS under the third scheme introduced in the bank. This request was not withdrawn by me and remained under consideration."
5. It is respectfully submitted that I was also allowed to exercise third option under the third VSS, which was exercised by me on 7.12.2001, which is more attractive and beneficial and also supersedes the earlier two schemes and the options exercised, if any, under the first two schemes became infructuous after the introduction of third VSS. Therefore, if at all there was any justification for accepting the option/application for VSS, the third option could be accepted and not the first one, which had been superseded and the option/applicant was also withdrawn by me for more than a year back.
In view of the matter, it is respectfully, requested that the impugned order dated 19.7.2003 may kindly be set aside and I may kindly be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits OR in the alternate my option dated 7.12.2001 under the third VSS may kindly be accepted and I may be given the benefits on the basis of my current salary received by me in June/July, 2003."
22. The Respondent Bank's order of acceptance of 1st VSS Scheme by the appellant, with the Office Order, dated 19.7.2003 to the effect that "The President & CEO has been pleased to accept the application dated 24.6.2003 of Mr. Zafar Iqbal, OG-III posted at Bahawalnagar under 1st Voluntary Separation Scheme (1st VSS). He will stand relieved from SME Bank w,e,f, 19.7.2003 (A.N.). Payment of his emoluments benefits under 1st VSS would be made subject to clearance about all his service benefit matters" has been challenged by the appellant's counsel as smacking of mala fides with a view to depriving him of the legitimate advantage of the revised pay scales introduced with effect from 1.4.2003, which he actually availed of being still in service then.
23. In view of the foregoing analysis, the argument that his option for the 3rd Scheme exercised on 7.12.2001 too being in the field, should have instead been accepted to allow him the benefit of the last pay drawn for calculating his VSS benefits, is in order. We are inclined to this view. Since he continued to be in service till 19.7.2003 therefore he was entitled to the benefit of his last drawn pay within the discipline. In this regard reference may be made to the apex Court's judgment in another Golden Handshake case titled "Khyber Zaman and others vs. Governor, State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and others' [2005 SCM R 235], relevant excerpt from which makes the following reading: "Pensionary benefits/retirement benefits shall be paid to the employees by calculating all the retirement/financial benefits on the basis of last pay drawn after treating the date of retirement as 15.12.1997."
24. This Tribunal has also held, as in the case cited by the appellant's counsel in Para 6 that in case of successive VS Schemes being introduced, the one coming last of all will become applicable on its acceptance, being just, fair and equitable in dispensation.
25.In view of the foregoing,, we accept the alternative part of the prayer and modify the respondents' order dated 19.7.2003 to substitute therein, wherever it figures, application dated 24.6.2000 and 1st VSS with application dated 7.12.2001 and 3rd VSS respectively and direct that the appellant be paid accordingly.