Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 103 (RAJ)

Budh Ram Yadav v. Bank of India

2001-01-19

B.S.CHAUHAN

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 30.11.2000 (Ann. 3), by which the application of the petitioner to withdraw the application for voluntary retirement has been rejected. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner, who is an Ex-serviceman, had joined the respondent bank as an Armed Guard with effect from 14.11.86. The respondents introduced a Scheme for Voluntary Retirement dated 20.10.2000 enabling the employees having fifteen years of service or forty years of age as on 1.11.2000 to seek voluntary retirement. Petitioner filed an application taking the benefit of the Scheme and seeking voluntary retirement, but before the same could he accepted, he filed an application on 27.11.2000 (Annx. 1) for withdrawing the application for voluntary retirement has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 30.11.2000 on the ground that the Instructions contained in Para 2-K(a) of the Scheme did not permit the employee to withdraw such application for voluntary retirement and, therefore, once the petitioner had opted for voluntary retirement, he had no right to withdraw the application. Hence this petition. 3. Heard Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the substantive right of the petitioner to withdraw the application of voluntary retirement cannot be taken away by such terms and conditions incorporated in the Scheme. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma has submitted that in pursuance of the terms and conditions incorporated in the Scheme itself, particularly clause 2-K (a), it is not permissible to withdraw the application for voluntary retirement. 5. Clause 2-K (a) of the said Scheme reads as under - "Other features:- (a) It will be the prerogative of the Bank's management either to accept a request for Voluntary Retirement or to reject the same depending upon the requirements of the Bank. the employee submitting the application for Voluntary Retirement under the Scheme shall not have the option to withdraw the same." 6. the employee submitting the application for Voluntary Retirement under the Scheme shall not have the option to withdraw the same." 6. The law on the issue is crystal clear and the legal position which emerges out from the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that an employee has a right to withdraw his resignation letter before its acceptance and in case the resignation is tendered with a stipulation to be effective from a future date, he can withdraw it even after its acceptane but prior to the date on which the resignation was to be made effective. (Vide Raj Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 180 ; P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789 ; Balram Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2354 ; Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal, 1989 (Supp) 2 SCC 175 ; Moti Ram v. Paramdeo & Anr., AIR 1993 SC 1662 ; The Power Financial Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, (1997) 4 SCC 280 ; Nand Keshav Irasand v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-operative Societies Ltd. & Anr., (1998) 5 SCC 461 ; and J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1571 ). 7. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hori'ble Apex Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India & Anr., (2000) 5 SCC 621 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the resignation, inspite of its to acceptance, can be withdrawn before the effective date. 8. In Union of India & Anr. v. Wg. Comm. 7. A similar view has been reiterated by the Hori'ble Apex Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India & Anr., (2000) 5 SCC 621 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the resignation, inspite of its to acceptance, can be withdrawn before the effective date. 8. In Union of India & Anr. v. Wg. Comm. T. Parthasarthy, JT 2000(Supp) 2 SC 490 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the policy of the Government provides that once the resignation is submitted by the employee and he was fully aware of the fact that he cannot seek for cancellation of the application, such policy will be destructive of the right of the employee in law to withdraw his request for premature retirement before it ever becomes operative and effective and effected termination of his status and relation with department The Court observed as under:- "The reliance placed upon the so-called policy decision which obligated the respondent to furnish a certificate to the extent that he was fully aware of the fact that he cannot later seek for cancellation of the application once made for premature retirement cannot, in our view, be destructive of the right of the respondent, in law, to withdraw his request for premature retirement before it ever becomes operative and effective and effected termination of his status and relation with the department. When the legal position is that much clear, it would be futile for the appellants to base their rights on some policy decision of the department or a mere certificate of the respondent being aware of a particular position which has no sanctity or basis in law to destroy such rights which otherwise inhered in him and available in law. No such deprivation of a substantive right of a person can be denied except on the basis of any statutory provision or rule or regulation. There being none brought to our notice in this case, the claim of the appellants cannot be countenanced in our hands. Even that apart, the reasoning of the High Court that the case of the respondent will not be covered by the type or nature of the mischief sought to be curbed by the so-called policy decision also cannot be said to suffer any conformity in law, to warrant out interference.- 9. Even that apart, the reasoning of the High Court that the case of the respondent will not be covered by the type or nature of the mischief sought to be curbed by the so-called policy decision also cannot be said to suffer any conformity in law, to warrant out interference.- 9. In the instant case, respondents could not point out any statutory rule, by which they could take away the substantive right of the petitioner to withdraw the application for voluntary retirement. The condition incorporated in the so-called Policy Decision/Scheme etc. do not have any statutory character. This case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Wg. Comm. T. Parthasarthy (supra) and, therefore, deserves to be allowed. 10. Petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.2000 (Annx. 3) is hereby quashed. Petitioner shall be deemed in continuous service of the respondents; however, he shall be entitled for 50% of the back wages.Writ petition allowed. *******