RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. vs. SMT. MOHANI DEVI

                                          NON­REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2236  OF 2020    (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5650 of 2019) Rajasthan State Road Transport               .… Appellant(s) Corporation Ltd. & Ors.                                   Versus Smt. Mohani Devi & Anr.   ….  Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J.                    Leave granted.      2.   The respondent herein was the Petitioner in S.B Civil   Writ   Petition   No.   2839/2012   filed   before   the Rajasthan High Court. The brief facts that led to the filing of the Writ Petition is that respondent herein had claimed the   retiral   benefits   of   her   late   husband   who   was Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUMARI BAJAJ Date: 2020.04.15 14:26:51 IST Reason: appointed   in   the   post   of   conductor   on   15.03.1979   at Page 1 of 13 Alwar   Depot   of   the   Appellant   Road   Transport Corporation.  The benefits were claimed on the basis that her husband be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service instead of having resigned. 3. In the course of service, respondent’s husband had moved an application seeking voluntary retirement from service   on   28.07.2005   indicating   health   reasons.   No order was passed on the said application for voluntary retirement and the respondent’s husband continued to remain in service. 4. Subsequently,   the   respondent’s   husband   on 03.05.2006 submitted his resignation as he claimed to be under depression and his health condition had further deteriorated.   The   resignation   was   accepted   by   the authorities on 31.05.2006, he was relieved of his duties and the benefits were paid. 5. Thereafter, the respondent’s husband is stated to have immediately submitted an application pointing out that   he   had   erred   in   mentioning   ‘resignation’   and   he Page 2 of 13 desired   to   retire   in   view   of   his   earlier   application   for voluntary retirement. The application also mentioned that no decision had been taken by authorities on his first application dated 28.07.2005 and therefore he should be treated   as   having   voluntarily   retired   with   consequent retiral   benefits.   The   respondent   after   her   husband’s death approached the High Court with such prayer. 6. The   learned   Single   Judge   held   that   the respondent’s   husband   had   moved   an   application indicating deteriorating health and forcing such employee to work would be an act of oppression. Additionally, it was held that the voluntary retirement application was not   decided   within   the   period   prescribed   as   per   the Clause 19­ D(2) of the Pension Scheme and reliance was placed on Clause 18­D(2) of RSRTC Standing Orders as per   which   an   employee   of   the   Corporation   who   had rendered   pensionable   service   was   entitled   to   seek voluntary   retirement.   It   held   that   the   respondent’s husband would be deemed to have retired even though he had moved another application terming his retirement Page 3 of 13 as resignation  in  view  of   the   law  laid   down   in   Sheel   vs.   Kumar Jain The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (1) SLR 305. Thus, the appellants were directed to treat respondent’s husband as having voluntarily retired and release the retiral benefits to which he was entitled.  7. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the appellants herein   in   D.B   Special   Appeal   Writ   No.   1261/2018. However, no infirmity was found by the Division Bench in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The same has been assailed by the appellants herein in this appeal. 8.  In the above background we have heard Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj,   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants,   Mr.   S. Mahendran,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   and perused the appeal papers.  9. The   short   question   that   arises   for   consideration herein is as to whether the husband of the respondent had acquired an indefeasible right to seek for voluntary retirement from service and in that   light whether the Page 4 of 13 High Court was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the subsequent resignation dated 03.05.2006 submitted by the husband of the respondent be considered as an application   for   voluntary   retirement   and   treat   the cessation of the jural relationship of employer/employee under the provision for Voluntary Retirement.  10. In order to consider the above aspect, a perusal of the factual matrix in the instant case would indicate that the respondent’s husband had joined the service of the Appellant   Transport   Corporation   at   Alwar   Depot   on 15.03.1979. The application seeking voluntary retirement was   submitted   on   28.07.2005   by   which   period   the respondent’s husband no doubt had put in more than 25 years of service. Insofar as the eligibility to apply seeking voluntary retirement in view of the completed length of service,   the   respondent’s   husband   had   acquired   such right. The Appellant Transport Corporation however, did not think it appropriate to accept the application and grant the voluntary retirement. In that circumstance the husband of the respondent submitted his resignation on Page 5 of 13 03.05.2006   which   was   accepted   by   the   Appellant Transport Corporation and was relieved on 31.05.2006. The respondent contends that immediately thereafter an application   was   made   indicating   that   the   word ‘resignation’   was   inadvertently   mentioned   and   the intention of the respondent’s husband was to renew his request   for   voluntary   retirement.   However,   the consideration   of   such   subsequent   application   by   the Appellant   Transport   Corporation   did   not   arise   and   as indicated, the respondent’s husband had been relieved on 31.05.2006 and all the service benefits payable in respect of an employee who had resigned from service was paid, which was accepted by the respondent’s husband. The undisputed   position   is   also   that   the   respondent’s husband   subsequently   died   on   14.04.2011.   It   is subsequent to the death of the husband, the respondent had   filed   the   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court   of judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2839/2012. The  learned  Single Judge while considering the case of the respondent merely took Page 6 of 13 note of the legal position which had been enunciated by this Court in the facts of those cases which had been referred and with a bare reference to Clause 19D(2) of the Rules arrived at the conclusion that the application for voluntary retirement was deemed to have  been accepted and therefore, directed that the appellants to treat the respondent’s husband to have retired from service on the date he was relieved and pay the retiral benefits. The Division Bench has reiterated the said position.  11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the factual aspects which were relevant for decision making in the instant case has not been referred by the High Court during the course of its order but has merely assumed that the voluntary retirement application should be deemed to have been accepted when there was no rejection.   As noticed from the objection statement filed by the respondent herein herself, the right to seek for   voluntary   retirement   is   stipulated   in   Rule   50   of Rajasthan   Civil   Services   Pension   Rules,   1996.     As indicated above, since the same provides for 20 years of Page 7 of 13 qualifying   service,   the   respondent’s   husband   had qualified to apply. However, what is relevant to take note is that   sub­Rule(2)  thereof   provides   that   the   notice   of voluntary retirement given by the employee shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. In the instant case,   the   undisputed   position   is   that   there   was   no acceptance and in that circumstance the husband of the respondent had submitted his resignation on 03.05.2006. Though   the   High   Court   has   indicated   deemed acceptance,   the   same   would   not   be   justified   in   the instant facts since the position which has not been taken note by the High Court is that as on the date when the husband of the respondent had made the application for voluntary retirement on 28.07.2005 the husband of the respondent   had   already   been   issued     Charge­Sheets bearing No.7352 dated 16.12.2004 and bearing No.4118 dated   11.07.2005   alleging   misconduct.   Though   the respondent,   through the objection statement seeks to contend that the charge alleged against her husband was not   justified,   that   aspect   of   the   matter   would   not   be Page 8 of 13 germane to the present consideration since the position of   law   is   well   established   that   pending   disciplinary proceedings if an application for voluntary retirement is submitted there would be no absolute right seeking for acceptance since the employer if keen on proceeding with the   inquiry   would   be   entitled   not   to   consider   the application for voluntary retirement. Hence there would be   no   obligation   to   accept.   In   the   instant   facts   the proceedings   relating   to   the   charge   sheet   was   taken forward   and   completed   through   the   final   order   dated 03.09.2005.   The   punishment   of   withholding   of   the increment was imposed. In such circumstance the non­ consideration of the application for voluntary retirement would be justified.  12. Be that as it may, as noted the inquiry had been completed and thereafter when the respondent’s husband submitted the resignation on 03.05.2006, the same was processed, accepted, he was relieved on 31.05.2006 and the payment of terminal benefits were made which had been   accepted   by   him.   During   his   lifetime   up   to Page 9 of 13 14.04.2011  the  husband  did  not raise  any  issue  with regard to the same. It is only thereafter the respondent has filed the writ petition before the High Court. Primarily it is to be noticed that when the application for voluntary retirement was filed on 28.07.2005 and had not been favourably   considered   by   the   employer,   instead   of submitting the resignation on 03.05.2006, if any legal right was available the appropriate course ought to have been   to   seek   for   acceptance   of   the   application   by initiating   appropriate   legal   proceedings.   Instead   the respondent’s husband had yielded to the position of non­ acceptance   of   the   application   for   voluntary   retirement and   has   thereafter   submitted   his   resignation.   The acceptance   of   the   resignation   was   acted   upon   by receiving the terminal benefits. If that be the position, when   the   writ   petition   was   filed   belatedly   in  the   year 2012 and that too after the death of the employee who had   not   raised   any   grievance   during   his   life   time, consideration of the prayer made by the respondent was Page 10 of 13 not justified. The High Court has, therefore, committed an error in passing the concurrent orders.  13. The   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   would submit that even if it is a case of resignation the deceased husband of the respondent was entitled to the payment of gratuity   as   he   had   put   in   the   qualifying   service.   The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the gratuity   amount   had   been   paid.   In   that   regard,   the reference made to para 9 of the writ appeal filed before the   High   Court   would   however   indicate   that   though reference   is   made   to   the   payment   disbursed   to   the respondent’s   husband   while   accepting   the   resignation, the same does not disclose that the gratuity amount has been paid. Further, in the appeal filed before this Court the appellants have sought to justify the non­payment of the   gratuity   as   the   husband   of   the   respondent   had resigned   from   service.   As   rightly   pointed   out   by   the learned counsel for the respondents, Section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides that the gratuity shall be payable if the termination of employment is after Page 11 of 13 5   years   of   continuous   service   and   such   termination would include resignation as well. In that view, if the gratuity amount has not been paid to the respondent’s husband, the liability to pay the same would subsist and the respondent No.1 will be entitled to receive the same in   accordance   with   the   provisions   of   the   Act.   In   that regard it is directed that the appellants shall accordingly calculate   the   gratuity   and   pay   the   same   to   the respondent No.1, if already not paid. Such payment shall be made within four weeks from this date.   14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated   19.11.2018   passed   in   D.B.   Special   Appeal(W) No.1261/2018 upholding the order dated 01.11.2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2839 of 2012 is set aside. The gratuity   amount   as   directed   above   shall   be   paid   to respondent   No.1   in   terms   of   the   provisions   of   the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 within four weeks from this date. Page 12 of 13 15.  Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.  ………….…………….J. (R. BANUMATHI)           ………….…………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, April 15, 2020 Page 13 of 13