Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PROJECT & DEVELOPMENT INDIA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2000
BENCH:
S.S.Ahmad, R.C.Lahoti
JUDGMENT:
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted. 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." 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. 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contention of the appellant that he having withdrawn the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. 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 vs. Union of India & Anr.
1987 (Supp.) SCC 228; J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India
& Anr. (1998) 9 SCC 559 and Power Finance Corporation Ltd.
vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia (1997) 4 SCC 280, 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 impugned 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.