Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 407 (JHR)

Md. Husnain Akhtar v. State of Jharkhand

2019-02-08

ANANDA SEN

body2019
ORDER : Petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.10.2018 (memo No.1064) issued under the signature of the District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Koderma, whereby the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement has been accepted. Further prayer has been made to accept the application by which the petitioner has prayed to cancel his application for voluntary retirement. He also prays that he should be allowed to join his service. 2. The facts of this case are admitted. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 01.02.1993 and was posted at Primary Girls Urdu School, Block Jainagar, District Koderma. Admittedly he submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement. The said application is dated 22.10.2018. On the ground that he is suffering from high blood pressure and diabetes and as his mother is 90 years old, who needs to be looked after, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement. He sought voluntary retirement with effect from 30.11.2018. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Koderma, vide memo No.1064 dated 30.10.2018 accepted the application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner with effect from 31.10.2018 as petitioner has already completed 20 years of service. The petitioner, thereafter, on 21.12.2018 wrote a letter to the District Superintendent of Education stating that he now wants to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement and his application should be treated as cancelled. As no action was taken, petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer seeking the aforesaid direction. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his application seeking withdrawal of application for voluntary retirement should be considered by the respondents. He submits that as per his application for voluntary retirement, he prayed that the same should be given effect to with effect from 30.11.2018, but, in fact, his voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 31.10.2018, which is an illegality. He prays that he should be reinstated in service. 5. Though counter affidavit has not been filed, but, the State opposes the prayer and submits that once application for voluntary retirement is accepted and given effect to, the same cannot be withdrawn. 6. Since the facts are admitted in this case, it is not necessary to call for a Counter Affidavit from the end of respondents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of voluntary retirement on 22.10.2018. 6. Since the facts are admitted in this case, it is not necessary to call for a Counter Affidavit from the end of respondents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of voluntary retirement on 22.10.2018. The same was accepted with effect from 31.10.2018 and he stood voluntarily retired from that date. He sought to withdraw the said application on 21.12.2018. It is well settled that an application for voluntary retirement once accepted, the same cannot be withdrawn [reference may be made to (2003) 11 SCC 572 (A.P. SIDC Ltd. Versus R. Varaprasad)]. Principles of law of contract relating to offer and acceptance is applicable in the case of voluntary retirement. The offer of voluntary retirement can only be withdrawn before acceptance. Once the offer is accepted, the same cannot be withdrawn. Thus, an offer made by an employee could be withdrawn by him before it is accepted and not after [reference may be made to (2003) 2 SCC 721 (Bank of India versus O.P. Swarnakar)]. On acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement and once it is given effect to, no relationship of employer and employee survives. 8. In this case, I find that the petitioner has tried to withdraw the offer of voluntary retirement only after the same was accepted. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment, since the offer is concluded by acceptance, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. At that point of time, the employer and employee relationship also seized. 9. Further, the submission of the petitioner that he has been voluntarily retired prematurely with effect from 31.10.2018 in place of 30.11.2018, which he had mentioned in the application for voluntary retirement, depriving him an opportunity to withdraw the application, has got no relevance. As per the petitioner, the voluntary retirement should have taken effect from 30.11.2018. In that case also, the petitioner’s letter withdrawing the offer of voluntary retirement is dated 21.12.2018. Even if it is considered that the date mentioned in the application will be deemed date of voluntarily retirement, then also his letter of withdrawal is much after the said date. Thus, this argument is also not acceptable. 10. Thus, I find no merit in this writ application. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.