Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 99 (HP)

PARMA NAND SHARMA v. HRTC

2000-05-08

AVTAR SINGH, NARINDER SINGH THAKUR

body2000
JUDGMENT Honble Mr. Narinder Thakur, Member (Judicial) :- This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In this present application the applicant prays for the following reliefs:- (i) That the impugned order dated January 12,1998, Annexure A-2 retiring the applicant from service w.e.f. April 1, 1998 and also the rejection of his representation vide order dated March 11,1998, Annexure A-4, may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That it may be declared that the applicant continued in service as Traffic Manager and he may also be held entitled for consideration for further promotion as Regional Manager w.e.f. September 15,1998, when three persons junior to him were so promoted and he may be held entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears of salary for the period when he remained out of job on account of impugned order." 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that on account of adverse family circumstances, the applicant found that it was not possible for him to continue in service. In these circumstances he submitted representation dated December 18,1997, Annexure A-1, to the Managing Director of respondent Corporation stating therein that he may be permitted to seek voluntary retirement from service with effect from April 1,1998. 3. That vide office dated January 12,1998, Annexure A-2, the request of applicant for voluntary retirement was accepted and it was ordered that he would retire from service of the corporation w.e.f. April 1, 1998. 4. That after submitting the representation for voluntary retirement, the applicant gave a second thought and in view of his changed circumstances submitted representation dated February 3,1998, Annexure A-3, wherein he requested the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation that his request regarding voluntary retirement may be treated as withdrawn and he may be allowed to continue in service till the age of superannuation. However, this request of the applicant was not accepted and rejection was conveyed to the applicant vide memorandum dated March 11,1998, Annexure A-4, wherein it was stated that the withdrawl was not based on any solid ground/ reasons. 5. That the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated March 21,1998, Annexure A-5, to the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation and again requested that the order regarding voluntary retirement may be withdrawn and he may be allowed to continue in service. 6. 5. That the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated March 21,1998, Annexure A-5, to the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation and again requested that the order regarding voluntary retirement may be withdrawn and he may be allowed to continue in service. 6. That vide memorandum dated August 25, 1998, Annexure A-6, the Managing Director of the respondent corporation advised the applicant to appear in person on September 1, 1998 at 11-00 A.M. in connection with his appeal dated March 21,1998 and the applicant appeared for personal hearing before the Managing Director on September 1,1998. 7. That when the applicant did not hear any thing on his appeal dated March 21,1998, he submitted a detailed representation dated November 28,1998, Annexure A-8, to the Honble Transport Minister, who is also the Chairman of the Corporation. Till date he has not received any response, hence this application. By this application the applicant seeks the indulgence of this Tribunal for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, inter-alia on the following grounds:- (A) That it is settled law that if an employee seeks voluntary retirement or proposes to resign form service on some future date, the dissolution of the relationship of Master and servant is brought about only on the date indicated and up to that date the employee continue in government service. There is no unilateral termination of the service prior there to. He is at liberty, to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement or resignation before the intended date indicated by him in his application. (B) Since the family circumstances of the applicant were adverse, he submitted application dated, December 18,1997, seeking voluntary retirement, which was accepted on January 12,1998. However, not with standing order dated January 12,1998, applicant continued in service of HRTC till March 31,1998. Before that day he had a right to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. Keeping in view that the family circumstances of the applicant changed and his relations and friends impressed upon him not to proceed on premature retirement, he changed his mind and submitted application dated February 3, 1998 requesting for permission to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement. In these circumstances, there is no reasons as to why the impugned order should not have been recalled by the respondent corporation. The rejection of the representation of applicant on March 11,1998 is patently unjust and arbitrary. In these circumstances, there is no reasons as to why the impugned order should not have been recalled by the respondent corporation. The rejection of the representation of applicant on March 11,1998 is patently unjust and arbitrary. (C) It is submitted that such a power cannot be exercised arbitrarily and without any cogent reasons. In the present case, applicant had submitted representation for voluntary retirement on account of his adverse family circumstances, which was withdrawn by him well before the intended date of retirement. There appears to be no just and reasonable ground to refuse permission to withdraw the request for voluntary retirement. The rejection being without any justifiable reasons is liable to be quashed and set aside as arbitrary, unreasonable, oppressive and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (D) That the applicant has yet to settle his two sons in life and they are yet to be married. The date of birth of applicant is June 11,1943 and he is to attain the age of superannuation on June 31,2001. Keeping in view this fact also it would be most oppressive if the impugned order refusing to revoke the order of retirement of applicant is not quashed. 8. It is submitted by the respondent Corporation in their reply that the application is barred by limitation. It is further submitted by the respondent corporation that the applicant submitted the representation dated February 3,1998 after the acceptance of the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement. However, his representation was duly considered and rejected for not showing the justifiable reasons for withdrawing the voluntary retirement application of the applicant. The applicant was retired from the service of the Corporation w.e.f. April 1,1998 as such he has no claim for his promotion against the junior w.e.f. September 15,1998 i.e. after five months of retirement. It is further submitted by the respondents that there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the application should be state way rejected. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Dilip Sharma and Shri Suresh Bhardwaj counsel for the respondent corporation. It is further submitted by the respondents that there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the application should be state way rejected. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri Dilip Sharma and Shri Suresh Bhardwaj counsel for the respondent corporation. It is admitted fact that the applicant was to retire from service as a Traffis Manager w.e.f. April, 1998 and before this date he has made a representation dated February 3,1998, wherein he requested the respondent Corporation that his request regarding voluntary retirement may be treated as withdrawn and he may be allowed to continue in service till the age of superannuation. 10. Assuming that the respondents have a right to refuse the permission to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement, it is settled law that such powers cannot be exercised arbitrarily and without any cogent reasons. In the present case the applicant has submitted the representation for voluntary retirement, which was withdrawn by him by indicating reasons as mentioned above, there appears to be no just and reasonable ground to refuse permission to withdraw the request for voluntary retirement. The rejection being without any cogent reasons, is liable to be quashed and set aside as being arbitrary, un-reasonable, oppressive and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In support of it the learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following case law:- (i) 1987 (Supp.) SCC 228, Balram Gupta Versus Union of India, (ii) Jai Ram Vs. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 180 (iii) Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India 1996 (8) SCC 283. (iv) Balbir Singh Negi Vs. Union of India 11. In particular he has referred to paras 13 and 14 of the Apex Court Judgment (1987 Supp. SCC 228). In this case the applicant, after completing more than 20 years Government service offered by his letter dated December 24,1980 to voluntary retire from the service with effect from March 31,1981 by treating the notice period with effect from January 1, 1981. The respondent-Government by its letter dated January 20,1981 allowed the applicant to do so. However, in the meantime, the applicant stated that on account of persistent and personal requested from the staff members, he had to change his mind and accordingly by his letter dated January 31,1981 he sought to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement. The respondent-Government by its letter dated January 20,1981 allowed the applicant to do so. However, in the meantime, the applicant stated that on account of persistent and personal requested from the staff members, he had to change his mind and accordingly by his letter dated January 31,1981 he sought to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement. But the authority concerned disallowed the applicants request under Rule 48-A (4) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules which precludes a government servant from withdrawing his notice "Except with the specific approval of such authority". It was held by the Apex Court that there was no valid reason for withholding the permission by the respondent. Therefore, the applicant was entitled to be put back to his job with all consequential benefits being treated as in the job from March 31,1981. The present case is fully covered by this judgment. The crux of this judgment is that (notice of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time before retirement becomes effective not with standing any rule providing for obtaining of specific approval of the concerned authority as condition precedent to withdrawl of notice. Authority not entitled to refuse to grant approval for the withdrawl in absence of any reason showing disturbance in administrative set up or arrangement as a result of such withdrawl). The present case is fully covered by the judgment of the Apex Court. 12. We hold, therefore, that there was no valid reason for withholding the permission by the respondents. We hold further that there has been compliance with the guidelines because the applicant has indicated that there was a change in the circumstances namely, the persistent and personal request from the relation and family members which changed his attitude towards continuing in government service the induced the applicant to withdraw the notice. In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange ones future with any amount of certainty; a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardize government or administration, the administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the applicant to withdraw his letter of retirement in the facts and circumstances of this case. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The Court cannot but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out" uncomfortable employees. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The Court cannot but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out" uncomfortable employees. As a model employer the management must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees. 13. In view of above discussion we allow the application and declare the applicant to be in continuous service aa a Traffic Manager with all consequential benefits including seniority etc. for the period when he remained out of job. Impugned Annexure A-2 dated January 12,1998 and Annexure A-4 dated March 11,1998 are hereby quashed and set aside. With these observations the application is allowed. The arrears etc. be paid to the applicant within a period of two months from this order.