Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PRAMOD KUMAR BHATIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted . We have heard learned counsel on both
sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the division Bench of the Delhi High court, made on
1.11.1996 in C.W. No. 2086/95.
The admitted position is that the respondent, while
working in the appellant corporation, had applied for
voluntary retirement, pursuant to the scheme framed by the
Corporation to relieve the surplus staff.
Initially, by proceedings dated December 20, 1994, the
Corporation accepted his resignation subject to the
clearance of the outstanding dues. The acceptance was to be
given effect from December 31,1994. By letter dated January
6, 1995, he requested for deduction of a sum of Rs.
37,521.20 out of the outstanding dues. He also requested
thus:
"I once again request you that the
formal relieving order relieving me
for me immediately. My service
period for which ex-gratia is
payable be informed to me and my
dues be paid immediately."
Based thereon, it is contended by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned
senior counsel for the appellant, that acceptance of the
voluntary retirement of the respondent was a conditional one
He himself understood that unless he is relieved of the
duties after payment of outstanding dues, the voluntary
retirement does not become effective. In the meanwhile,
realising the mistake committed by the appellant for
effecting the voluntary retirement scheme which does not
apply to the Corporation since there is no surplus staff,
the appellant withdrew the scheme. Therefore, there was
neither the scheme nor a concluded order of voluntary
retirement of the respondent relieving him from the duties.
The High Court, therefore, is not right in holding that the
order dated December 20,1994 created vested right in the
respondent and the same cannot be divested by subsequent
orders.
Initially, Mr. A.K. Sikri appeared on behalf of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
respondent and argued the matter. Before the order could be
dictated, the respondent himself appeared and said that his
counsel may be relieved and he may be permitted him to argue
the matter. Accordingly, we permitted him to argue the
matter. He stated that he was relieved from the duty on the
basis of an endorsement made on the letter dated December
20,1994 and what he meant by writing the letter dated
January 6,1995 was to seek a certificate for relieving him
from the duty. The acceptance of the voluntary retirement
having become effective from December 31, 1994, vested
right had been created in him. Therefore, the view of the
High Court is in accordance with law.
Having regard to the respective contentions, the
question that arises for consideration is: whether the
respondent acquired a vested right after acceptance of the
voluntary retirement by proceedings dated December 20, 1994?
It is seen that the order is a conditional order in that
until the dues are paid, the order does not become
effective. The respondent himself admitted that the
outstanding dues could be adjusted from the amount payable
to him. Admittedly, no such adjustment has been made. He ,
therefore, rightly understood that unless he is relieved of
the duties of the post, after the payment of the outstanding
dues, the order accepting his voluntary retirement does not
become effective.
It is now settled legal position that unless the
employee is relieved of the duty, after acceptance of the
offer of voluntary retirement or resignation, jural
relationship of the employee and the employer does not come
to an end. since the order accepting the voluntary
retirement was a conditional one, the conditions ought to
have been complied with. Before the conditions could be
complied with, the appellant withdrew the scheme.
consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did
not become effective. Thereby no vested right has been
created in favour of the respondent. The High court,
therefore, was not right in holding that the respondent has
acquired a vested right and, therefore, the appellant has no
right to withdraw the scheme subsequently.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the
High Court stands reversed. The writ petition stands
dismissed. No costs.