Mahinder Narain, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, Jaspal Singh, has moved this Court, seeking to assail the action of the respondents, not permitting him to voluntarily retire in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of respondent No. 2, Air India Corporation, contained in circular dated 16. 10. 1991. ( 2 ) THE petitioner says that he is employed in Air India, respondent No. 2, which being a Corporation C. W. 477/94 under the control of Union of India, respondent No. 1, is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) THE petitioner says that he joined service of the Air India as an Assistant Station uperintendent in the Passenger Sales Department on 16. 02. 1973 on probation. He was made permanent w. e. f. March, 1974, and he has continued to work with Air India Corporation since. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 issued a circular dated 16. 10. 1991, which was a scheme for Voluntary Retirement (annexure "j" to the petition ). As the case turns upon this Voluntary Retirement Scheme, it is appropriate that the same be set out in its entirety, it reads. AIR INDIA HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BOMBAY CIRCULAR NO. DHRD/1/451 October 16,1991 SUB: Voluntary Retirement Scheme for Officers In order to achieve optimal manpower utilization and improving the overall efficiency, it is hereby notified that an officer who has put in a continuous service of 20 years in the Corporation or on attaining the age of 55 years can opt for voluntary retirement by giving three months notice in writing to the Management. The Officer retiring under this Scheme will be eligible for full post-retirement benefits like passage, medical benefits etc. The Corporation reserves its right either to accept or reject such request and the reasons will be communicated to the Officer concerned. 2. The option to retire under this Scheme is in supersession of all othervoluntary Retirement Schemes applicable to the Officers which are in vogue. 3. This will come into force with immediate effect and the Corporation reserves its right to withdraw, amend and modify this Order at its discretion. (T. Madhavan Kutty) Director Human Resources Development ( 5 ) THE petitioner Says that in view of the circular dated 16. 10. 3. This will come into force with immediate effect and the Corporation reserves its right to withdraw, amend and modify this Order at its discretion. (T. Madhavan Kutty) Director Human Resources Development ( 5 ) THE petitioner Says that in view of the circular dated 16. 10. 1991, he sent a letter which is annexure "k" to the petition, seeking voluntary retirement on 03. 06. 1993. The said letter reads as under:- The Commercial Director, Air India, Bombay. Through : i) Manager-Northern India ii) Regional Director-India Dear Sir. . . . I have served the Corporation since February 16, 1973, and now wish to apply for voluntary retirement. I have approximately 5 months leave which I would like to take commencing June 14, 1993. 2. Certain personal circumstances beyond my control have necessitated this move. I would also hasten to add that I have had a very satisfying tenure and can only wish the Corporation and my colleagues the very best in the future. 3. We have afamily business and in the absence of anyone else, the responsibility has fallen on me to take over the affairs and hence, keeping my long term interests at heart, I must make this painful separation. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (Jaspal Singh) Station Manager June 3,1993. Staff No. 38429, New Delhi. ( 6 ) THE petitioner says that as no reply was received to the letter dated 03. 06. 1993, the petitioner sent a reminder on or about 12. 12. 1993, which is, however, not on record. ( 7 ) THE petitioner also says that he heard nothing in connection with the notice seeking voluntary retirement dated 03. 06. 1993 for a period of three months - the notice period postulated, by circular dated 16. 10. 1991, and on that account, in as much as he fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the said Scheme for Voluntary Retirement upon expiry of the notice period, he became entitled to voluntary retirement under that scheme, and to the benefits mentioned in the said Circular. Much after the period of three months, respondent No. 2 Corporation, however, sent a reply dated 13. 12. 1993 to the petitioner, which is annexed to the petition as annexure "m" and reads as under:- AIR INDIA Manager-Northern India MNI/a-I/jjs December 13,1993. Dear Jaspal,. Further to your letter. Much after the period of three months, respondent No. 2 Corporation, however, sent a reply dated 13. 12. 1993 to the petitioner, which is annexed to the petition as annexure "m" and reads as under:- AIR INDIA Manager-Northern India MNI/a-I/jjs December 13,1993. Dear Jaspal,. Further to your letter. dated 12th December, 1993, we have received the response from CHQ wherein they have regretted their inability to approve your request. With regards, Yours sincerely, (J. J. Singh) Mr. Jaspal Singh, S. M. , Staff No. 38249, New Delhi. ( 8 ) IT is the petitioner s contention that firstly the letter dated 13. 12. 1993 is beyond the period of three months, postulated by the notice, and secondly the same did not give any reasons as to why Air India was refusing to permit the petitioner to take Voluntary Retirement, and as such because Air India has not complied with its own circular, the Voluntary Retirement Scheme which superseded all other schemes for voluntary retirement which were prevalent, the petitiner is entitled to voluntary retirement in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 16. 10. 1991. ( 9 ) THE petitioner on receipt of the letter dated 13. 12. 1993, however, wrote a letter dated 17. 12. 1993, asking for reasons for rejection of his request of voluntary retirement, to respondent No. 2, which is annexed as annexure "n" to the petition, which reads as under:- The Commercial Director, Air India, Bombay. December 17, 1993 Through : 1. Manager-N. India 2. Regional Director-India Dear Sir, Re: Voluntary Retirement. With reference to the Circular NO. DHRD/1/451 dated 16th Oct. 1991 I had offered to retire voluntarily by my letter dated 3rd June 1993: Since no reply was received, until 12th Dec. 1993, I sent a reminder. The Manager, N. India, sent me a letter saying that CHQ Bombay has regretted their inability to approve my request. Copy of the said letter is enclosed for your ready reference. The Circular No. DHRD/1/451 of 16 0ct. l991 provided : ". . . . . The Corporation reserves its right either to accept or reject such request and the reasons will be communicated to the officer concerned. Copy of the said letter is enclosed for your ready reference. The Circular No. DHRD/1/451 of 16 0ct. l991 provided : ". . . . . The Corporation reserves its right either to accept or reject such request and the reasons will be communicated to the officer concerned. " The object of communicating "the reasons" obviously is that the officer is acquainted with the grounds upon which the discretion has been exercised, enabling him to weigh them and if necessary, to comment upon them or challenge their validity before superior authority or may seek judicial review. Rejection of request, without reasons is inconsistent with the terms of the Circular. May I, therefore, request you to please furnish, at the earliest convenience, reasons for rejection of my request of premature retirement, so that I may weigh them. Yours faithfully, Jaspal Singh S. M.-N. India Staff No: 38429 N. Delhi. ( 10 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 on the request of the petitioner, gave reasons by letter dated 13. 01. 1994, which were communicated to the petitioner on 28. 01. 1994, which letter reads as under:- AIR INDIA HEADQUARTI rs Mr. Jaspa] Singh, Station Manager. St. No. 38429 New Delhi, HQ/65/5/6827 (Thru: Commercial Director) This has reference to your letter dated 17 December 1993. As you are aware, the Corporation has embarked upon expanding both its fleet and total route network and, therefore, at this critical stage it can ill-afford to lose experienced manpower trained in their respective fields over number of years. It is sincerely hoped that this will clarify the reason for not acceding to your request for voluntary retirement by the Management. (S. Vasu) Secretary and Deputy Director-Admn. ( 11 ) IT is contended by Mr. Ahmadi that the reasons stated in the letter dated 13. 01,1994 are after-thought, and in view of what is stated herein, we agree with what is contended by the petitioner, that the reasons are after-thought. This contention is fortified by the fact that the respondent Corporation has chosen not to produce its record before us, giving reasons, if any, for which voluntary retirement is to be refused to the petitioner. ( 12 ) MR. This contention is fortified by the fact that the respondent Corporation has chosen not to produce its record before us, giving reasons, if any, for which voluntary retirement is to be refused to the petitioner. ( 12 ) MR. Sharma appearing for the respondents, however, contends that Air India has got a right to accept or reject the voluntary retirement requests of its employees, and the only requirement is that the reasons are to be communicated within a reasonable time. He also refers to the Air India regulations, particularly regulation No. 46, which relates to Voluntary Retirement Scheme, mentioned in the regulation. In our view, reference to regulation No. 46 has no meaning, in view of the fact that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 16. 10. 1991 specifically states that "option to retire under this Scheme is in supersession of all other Voluntary Retirement Schemes applicable to the Officers which are in vogue". ( 13 ) MR. Sharma s argument that the reasons for accepting or rejecting the request for voluntary etirement, has to be communicated within a reasonable time, and that in the instant case the reasonable time is the time taken to write the letter dated 13. 01. 1994, does not appeal to us for the reason that in terms of the Circular dated 16. 12. 1991, three months notice is required to be given. Apparently the respondent Corporation considered that a notice of three months was the reasonable period within which the Corporation had to decide whether to accept or reject the request for voluntary retirement of any employee. Having placed the limitation in the circular itself that three months notice is required, in our view the voluntary retirement of any person who seeks voluntary retirement would become effective upon expiry of three months from the date when request for voluntary retirement is made to the Corporation. Once the request for voluntary retirement has been given to the Corporation, it is for the Corporation to communicate the reasons for rejection of the request for voluntary retirement within a period of three months. It is unreasonable to expect any person seeking voluntary retirement to wait for a period beyond the period postulated by the Circular to give reasons. Once the request for voluntary retirement has been given to the Corporation, it is for the Corporation to communicate the reasons for rejection of the request for voluntary retirement within a period of three months. It is unreasonable to expect any person seeking voluntary retirement to wait for a period beyond the period postulated by the Circular to give reasons. Such a course of action would impart uncertainty in the matter of retirement of an individual who should also know whether he is to continue in service or his request is being acceded to within a period of three months, postulated by the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 16. 10. 1991. ( 14 ) WE are not unmindful of the fact that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme itself speaks of improvement of overall efficiency. It hardly reflects upon efficiency of an organisation that cannot make up its mind within the period of three months whether to accept or reject the request of voluntary retirement, which is made by its employees. ( 15 ) ON our asking, Mr. Ahmadi who appears for the petitioner, cited some judgments concerning voluntary retirement under Fundamental Rule 56, reported as AIR 1978 SC 17 (Dinesh Chandra Sangma Vs. State of Assam and others); 1984 (V SLR I (Union of India Vs. Harendralal Bhattacharya) and 1986 (1) SLR 76 (Dr. A. S. N. Swamy Vs. State of Karnataka ). All these judgments, however, relate to voluntary retirement scheme, which in terms is different from the one which is provided in Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 16. 10. 1991, and, therefore, do not assist either of the parties. ( 16 ) IN our view, inasmuch as the petitioner was covered by the provisions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 16. 10. 1991, inasmuch as he had to put in continuous service of more than 20 years prior to his making the request for voluntary retirement on 03. 06. 1993, and in view of the fact that till the expiry of three months from that date, i. e. till 02. 09. 1993, the respndent Corporation has not responded to the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, as on that date i. e. 02. 09. 1993, the petitioner became entitled to the benefits of Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the Circular dated 16. 10. 09. 1993, the respndent Corporation has not responded to the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, as on that date i. e. 02. 09. 1993, the petitioner became entitled to the benefits of Voluntary Retirement Scheme under the Circular dated 16. 10. 1991, and that it is not open to the respondent Corporation to give reasons, much after expiry of three months from the date of request for voluntary retirement, and deny voluntary retirement to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, this petition succeeds. The petitioner would, in terms of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 16. 10. 1991, be deemed to have voluntarily retired from 02. 09. 1993, and would be entitled to full retiral benefits, like passage, medical benefits etc. , as stated in the said Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 16,10. 1991. ( 17 ) WITH the aforesaid observations, the rule is made absoslute and the petition is disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs.