Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 927 (PAT)

P. K. Ranjan v. State Of Bihar

2003-09-01

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 28-2-2003, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for retirement under Rule 74 (wrongly stated as V.R.S.) has been accepted. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Textile Inspector and had filed application for grant of Earned Leave till 16-11-2002. He stated that on account of death of his mother he is not in a position to join on 17-11-2002 and accordingly prayed for grant of Earned Leave from 17-11-2002 to 30-11-2002. He went to the extent of saying that in case the aforesaid prayer is declined, his case for voluntary retirement may be considered. Respondent-Bihar State Export Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, by letter dated 19/20th December, 2002 (Annexure-7) informed to the petitioner that his prayer for grant of Leave shall be considered after he joins the Bhagalpur Branch Office within three days from the date of issuance of the letter. The petitioner was further informed that in case he fails to join within the stipulated time, the Corporation shall consider his request for SWACHEEK SEVA NEVRITI with immediate effect. The petitioner did not join and wrote to the respondent-Corporation on 6-2-2003 that as he did not join within the stipulated time as mentioned in the aforesaid letter, it is assumed and presumed that his V.R.S. has been accepted and in the aforesaid premises requested to clear all legitimate dues. 3. It is the stand of the petitioner that on 15-2-2003 (Annexure-11) he withdrew the application filed for seeking voluntary retirement. His grievance is that notwithstanding the same by the impugned order dated 28-2-2003 (Annexure-12) his voluntary retirement has been accepted. 4. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents in which it has been stated that the application filed by the petitioner dated 6-2-2003 (Annexure-10) was received in the Office of the Corporation on 7-2-2003 and on that date itself his prayer was accepted and thereafter the impugned notification dated 28-2-2003 was made. Accordingly, stand of respondent-Corporation is that the petitioner sought to withdraw his offer after the same was accepted by respondents. 5. Mr. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his application dated 14-11-2002 being conditional it ought not to have been treated as an application seeking voluntary retirement. Accordingly, stand of respondent-Corporation is that the petitioner sought to withdraw his offer after the same was accepted by respondents. 5. Mr. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his application dated 14-11-2002 being conditional it ought not to have been treated as an application seeking voluntary retirement. In this connection, he has referred to grievance made by the petitioner in the said letter. He points out that the petitioner in fact had asked for grant of Earned Leave and on the respondents failure to grant the same to treat the application as an application seeking voluntary retirement. 6. Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, however, appearing on behalf of respondents submits that not only in the communication dated 14-11-2002 the petitioner had sought for voluntary retirement but in fact he insisted for the same and went to the extent of assuming that his voluntary retirement has been accepted which would be evident from the letter dated 6-2-2003 (Annexure-10). He also points out that by letter dated 19/20tn December, 2002 (Annexure-7) the petitioner was informed that in case he does not join, his request for voluntary retirement shall be allowed with immediate effect. 7. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I do not find any force in the submission of Sri Srivastava. In application dated 14-11-2002, he had prayed for grant of Earned Leave and it was made very clear that in case it is not granted, the same may be treated as the letter seeking voluntary retirement. Further respondents informed him that his prayer for grant of Leave shall be considered after he joins the Bhagalpur Branch Office and was cautioned that in case he refuses to join his request for voluntary retirement shall be accepted with immediate effect. The petitioner did not act. In fact by letter dated 6-2-2003 he informed to the Managing Director that as he had not joined within the stipulated time, it will be assumed that its prayer for voluntary retirement has been accepted. Thus the petitioner was insisting for acceptance of his voluntary retirement and as such the submission made by Sri Srivastava has no legs to stand. 8. Mr. Srivastava then submits that the petitioner withdrew his offer of voluntary retirement by letter dated 15-2-2003 and as such the same ought not to have been accepted on 28-2-2003. The application of the petitioner dated 6-2-2003 has been placed on record by the respondents. 8. Mr. Srivastava then submits that the petitioner withdrew his offer of voluntary retirement by letter dated 15-2-2003 and as such the same ought not to have been accepted on 28-2-2003. The application of the petitioner dated 6-2-2003 has been placed on record by the respondents. This indicates that the offer of the petitioner was accepted on 7-2-2003 itself. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the Managing Director accepted the voluntary retirement of the petitioner after the receipt of the letter dated 15-2-2003. It seems that after the petitioner knew about the acceptance of his voluntary retirement he had taken a some result and filed application for withdrawing the offer of voluntary retirement. 9. In my view, when the Managing Director had accepted the voluntary retirement on 7-2-2003, the application filed by the petitioner on 15-2-2003 s of no consequence. Reference in this connection can be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of North Zonal Limited Centre and Anr. V/s. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, reported in 2003(5) SCC 455 . In the result, I find no merit in this application and is dismissed accordingly but without cost.