2000 JTR(SC) 787
2000 AIR(SC) 2473 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 2577 ; 2000 3 ALT(SC) 42 ; 2000 3 AWC 2330 ; 2000 2 CLR 638 ; 2000 3 CTC 319 ; 2000 97 FJR 124 ; 2000 86 FLR 206 ; 2000 6 JT 358 ; 2000 LIC 2610 ; 2000 1 LLJ 935 ; 2000 2 LLJ 935 ; 2000 3 LLN 513 ; 2000 2 RLW(Raj) 283 ; 2000 4 Scale 262 ; 2000 5 SCC 621 ; 2000 SCC(L&S) 741 ; 2000 3 SCR 9 ; 2000 2 SCT 807 ; 2000 4 SLR 577 ; 2000 2 UPLBEC 1752 ; 2000 KHC 1214 ; 2000 1 KLT(Online) 995 ; 2000 3 Supreme 680
2000(3) Supreme 680
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Patna High Court)
S. Saghir Ahmad & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Shambhu Murari Sinha -Appellant
versus
Project and Development India & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2639 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14645 of 1999)
Decided on 13-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.B. Upadhyay Advocate.
For the Respondents : S.K. Sinha, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Offer of voluntary retirement could be withdrawn before the department actually gives effect to its acceptance of offer of voluntary retirement.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The Service rules governing the scheme for voluntary retirement, read in conjunction with the provisions relating to acceptance and effectivity of such retirement, envisage that an officer who opts for voluntary retirement continues in service until a specified effective date, with the option capable of being withdrawn prior to that date. The scheme contemplates that acceptance of the option triggers a process culminating in release, but does not automatically preclude the officer from withdrawing the option before the effective date, thereby preserving the officer's right to continue in service if the withdrawal is communicated and not acted upon to the prejudice of the officer.
(B) An option for voluntary retirement accepted by the administration is not irrevocable; it remains open to withdrawal until the effective date of retirement, and the acceptance by itself does not mandate automatic relinquishment of service without an intervening communication of change of mind; the effective date is the point at which the officer is actually relieved, and until then, the officer retains the right to continue in service.
Facts of the case:
The appellant applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme on 18.10.1995, which was accepted by the management on 30.7.1997 with an undertaking to issue a release memo. The appellant continued in service and on 7.8.1997 and 24.9.1997 withdrew the retirement option. The management did not revert to the withdrawal and eventually relieved the appellant on 26.9.1997.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the acceptance of the option did not preclude withdrawal before the effective date and that the appellant was entitled to continue in service. The court further held that the relief on 26.9.1997 was the effective date of retirement.
Issues:
Whether an officer who has exercised the option for voluntary retirement can withdraw the option after its acceptance but before the effective date of retirement.
Ratio Decidendi:
An officer may withdraw the option for voluntary retirement after acceptance but before the effective date; such withdrawal, if not countered or acted upon to effect the release, mandates that the officer be allowed to continue in service with consequential benefits.
Result:
The impugned judgment is set aside, and the appellant is directed to be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. No costs are ordered.
(A) The Service rules governing the scheme for voluntary retirement, read in conjunction with the provisions relating to acceptance and effectivity of such retirement, envisage that an officer who opts for voluntary retirement continues in service until a specified effective date, with the option capable of being withdrawn prior to that date. The scheme contemplates that acceptance of the option triggers a process culminating in release, but does not automatically preclude the officer from withdrawing the option before the effective date, thereby preserving the officer's right to continue in service if the withdrawal is communicated and not acted upon to the prejudice of the officer.
(B) An option for voluntary retirement accepted by the administration is not irrevocable; it remains open to withdrawal until the effective date of retirement, and the acceptance by itself does not mandate automatic relinquishment of service without an intervening communication of change of mind; the effective date is the point at which the officer is actually relieved, and until then, the officer retains the right to continue in service.
Facts of the case:
The appellant applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme on 18.10.1995, which was accepted by the management on 30.7.1997 with an undertaking to issue a release memo. The appellant continued in service and on 7.8.1997 and 24.9.1997 withdrew the retirement option. The management did not revert to the withdrawal and eventually relieved the appellant on 26.9.1997.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the acceptance of the option did not preclude withdrawal before the effective date and that the appellant was entitled to continue in service. The court further held that the relief on 26.9.1997 was the effective date of retirement.
Issues:
Whether an officer who has exercised the option for voluntary retirement can withdraw the option after its acceptance but before the effective date of retirement.
Ratio Decidendi:
An officer may withdraw the option for voluntary retirement after acceptance but before the effective date; such withdrawal, if not countered or acted upon to effect the release, mandates that the officer be allowed to continue in service with consequential benefits.
Result:
The impugned judgment is set aside, and the appellant is directed to be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. No costs are ordered.
JUDGMENT
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.-Leave granted.
2. In pursuance of the scheme for voluntary retirement, the appellant submitted an application dated 18.10.1995 seeking voluntary retirement. The offer was accepted by the respondent-management by their letter dated 30.7.1997. In the letter, it was, inter alia, mentioned as under :
"In response to Circular No. PD/PERS/IR/60 (11)/374 dated 5.9.1995 and No. PD/PERS/IR/60 (111)/400 dated 12.10.1995 and your option for vol. retirement. Under the scheme mentioned in the above circulars, Management has accepted your option for Vol. Retirement. The release memo alongwith detailed particulars will follow.
Under the above V.R. Scheme there is a provision for retention of quarter for a period of 5 (five) years for which you are required to enter into an agreement, as such please obtain the format duly typed on non-judicial stamp paper from the office of S.P.O. For completing the agreement paper, the name of your father and quarter/bungalow No. is required, as such please give the above information in writing to us for the above purpose. The agreement paper may be returned duly signed by you and your witness to the Sr. Pers. Officer. It may be noted that you have to pay the charges of non-judicial paper and demi paper."
3. Since it was specifically stated in that letter that release memo along with detailed particulars will follow, the appellant continued in service till 26.9.1997 when he was relieved from the post in question. In the meantime, the appellant had already submitted a letter to the respondent on 7.8.1997 (followed by another letter dated 24.9.1997) withdrawing the letter dated 18.10.1995 by which he had sought voluntary retirement. But this letter was not given effect to by the respondent-management.
4. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge. The Writ Appeal filed against that judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment. The High Court did not accept the contention of the appellant that he having withdrawn the letter of voluntary retirement should be allowed to continue in service.
5. From the facts stated above, it would be seen that though the option of voluntary retirement exercised by the appellant by his letter dated 18.10.1995 was accepted by the respondent-management by their letter dated 30.7.1997, the appellant was not relieved from service and he was allowed to continue in service till 26.9.1997, which, for all practical purposes, would be the "effective date" as it was on this date that he was relieved from service. In the meantime, as pointed out above, the appellant had already withdrawn the offer of voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 7.8.1997. The question which, therefore, arises in this appeal is whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdraw the said offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective. The question is squarely answered by the three decisions, namely, Balram Gupta v. Union of India & Anr.1; J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr.2 and Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia3, in which it was held that the resignation, in spite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the "effective date". That being so, the appeal is allowed. The inpugned judgment of the High Court is set aside with the direction that the appellant shall be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeal allowed.
***************