' ABDUR RAZZAQUE (MEMBER).--- These appeals involve similar points of law and fact and are intended to be disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Facts leading to the appeals are that the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (now Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd.) floated a Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme vide Circular dated 19-8-2002.
Employees were invited to opt for the Scheme by 5-9-2002, later extended to 12-9-2002. The appellants opted within the given time. Receiving no immediate response the appellants withdrew their options on the ground that they had opted under compelling circumstances due to the propaganda in the press that those who would not opt would lose their jobs. The respondent-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.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that as the appellants had withdrawn their options before acceptance, the order dated 28-12-2002 communicating the acceptance was illegal, arbitrary and against the norms of natural justice. The learned Counsel drew an analogy between withdrawal of option for voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme and withdrawal of option for voluntary retirement and citing judgment in 1995 SCM R 904, averred that the options could be withdrawn before their acceptance. He also referred to section 5 of the Contract Act and argued that since the Bank had not accepted the options in time, the appellants had a legal right to withdraw them. The counsel further contended that the appellants were discriminated against as options of several employees were not accepted and they were allowed to continue in service.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the appeal and contended that the Circular of Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme was clear and unambiguous in that the optees had been informed that the Scheme was purely voluntary and that the eligible employees were at liberty to make their decisions taking into consideration the benefits as well as their respective situations before making the choice. The counsel argued that the circular also made clear that the options once exercised would be irrevocable and could not be withdrawn. It was also clarified that discretion for acceptance or rejection of options lay with the management. The counsel stated that out of a total of 7653 employees of the Bank, 2000 employees had opted and it was a huge task to process their cases for acceptance or otherwise of their options and release from service. Accordingly a phased plan was made to accept and release the optees in order not to affect the working of the Bank. The counsel stated that in view of their options the appellants were made officers on special duty on 17-10-2002 pending processing and finalization of their cases. This, the counsel argued, was a notice to the appellants that their options were going to be accepted sooner or later. The counsel denied vehemently that any of the optees had been allowed to withdraw his option and remain in service. There has been delay for completion of formalities but none has been allowed to withdraw the option. The counsel argued that the appellants could have filed their departmental representations as laid down in 1999 SCM R 197 even in the absence of a statutory provisions but instead they came before the Tribunal before exhausting the departmental remedy.
5. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. It is appropriate to reproduce the relevant terms and conditions of Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme, as under:--- "4. Other terms and conditions.
(vii) The option once exercised within the prescribed period shall be irrevocable and cannot be withdrawn.
(ix) All employees will be treated fairly and equitably. However, the management shall have the sole discretion to decide upon the options submitted, either to accept or reject on case to case basis.
(xi) In case where litigation is pending in any Court of law between an employee and the Bank, the employee may submit request for separation under the scheme and such requests shall be accepted or rejected by management on case to case basis.
(xii) Salary/Pay/Emoluments for the purpose of computation of all benefits under the scheme shall be as admissible on 5-9-2002. Therefore, for computation of benefits, while service till the date of release shall be taken into consideration, salary/pay/ emoluments as on 5-9-2002 shall form basis of all calculation irrespective of date of release.
(xiii) No conditional option shall by accepted by the management."
6. The appellants exercised the options on a form, which reads as under: Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Option Form ' I have carefully read and understood the contents of Head Office Circular No,PD-30-2002 Dated 19th August-2002 and do hereby opt for Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme announced by Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan.
' Name: ' Father/Husband Name: NIC No, ' P. P. No, Designation Place of Posting: Date: __________________________ Signature of optee:_____ Witness: ................................ a.. Witness: Signature: Signature Name: Name: PP No, PP No, Designation: Designation: ' I hereby confirm that the above named employee had signed his option form for Golden Hand Shake Scheme in my presence. The particulars given above have also been checked and found correct. The opting employee is not involved in any disciplinary case. (If involved in disciplinary case(s) attach up to date information on a separate sheet.
' Signature of Controlling Officer without official stamp. Name.
Designation:"
' It is obvious that the Scheme was purely voluntary and the appellants had filed their options having carefully read and understood the terms and conditions. They could not withdraw their options on an afterthought and that too only a day before acceptance. We do no feel that there was any compulsion on the appellants to opt for the scheme and also that there was any discrimination against them. We are quite satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent- Bank for the delay in acceptance as a lot of work was involved in processing the cases of a huge number of optees and the Bank had to make staff adjustments in order not to disturb its working.
The appellants had been removed from operational jobs vide order dated 17-10-2002 and made O.S.Ds. Prior to their release, indicating that their options had been accepted in principle and that they would be released in due course after scrutiny of their record and getting no demand certificates (N.O.Cs.) etc. 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 exercise 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.
7. In view of the above, we do not find reason to interfere. The appeals are therefore, dismissed as being without merit, with no order as to costs. Parties be informed.