Back
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.
Civil Appeal no. 2057 of 1987, D/- 1-9-1987.
Balram Gupta, Appellant
Versus
Union of India and another, Respondents.
Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 217(l), 226, 217 - Pension Rules - Rule 48-A (4) - Service - Accountant - Retirement From Service - Withdraw Retirement And Return To Duty - Appellant was working as an Accountant in Photo Division of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting - By that time appellant had rendered more than 20 years service - By letter appellant sought voluntary retirement from service after having completed more than 20 years service - Letter which was addressed to Director, Photo Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting - Appellant states that three months notice was required by rules of service to which appellant belonged - Whether sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A was valid and if so whether power exercised under sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A was proper - Whether sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A of Pension Rules is valid or not - Whether a Government servant who has given to appropriate authority notice of retirement under para 2(2) above has any right subsequently to withdraw same and return to duty – Held, It may be a salutary requirement that a Government servant cannot withdraw a letter of resignation or of voluntary retirement at his sweet will and put Government into difficulties reasons - If properly exercised power of government may be a salutary rule - Approval, however, is not ipse dixit of approving authority - Approving authority who has statutory authority must act reasonably and rationally - Only reason put forward here is that appellant had not indicated his reasons for withdrawal - This, in court opinion, was sufficiently indicated that he was prevailed upon by his friends and appellant had a second look at matter - This is not an unreasonable reason - In modern age court should not put embargo upon peoples choice or freedom – Court hold further that there has been compliance with guidelines because appellant has indicated that there was a change in circumstances, namely, persistent and personal requests from staff members and relations which changed his attitude towards continuing in Government service and induced appellant to withdraw notice - In modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange ones future with any amount of certainly, a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardize Government or administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement in facts and circumstances of this case - Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude - Court cannot but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out" uncomfortable employees - As a model employer government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees - Appeal Allowed.
Judgement
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. : - Special leave granted.
2. In 1980 the appellant was working as an Accountant in the Photo Division of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi. By that time the appellant had rendered more than 20 years service. By the letter dated 24th of December, 1980 the appellant sought voluntary retirement from the service after having completed more than 20 years service. The said letter dated 24th of December, 1980 which was addressed to the Director, Photo Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting stated, inter alia, as follows:-
"I beg to seek voluntary retirement on 31-3-1981. I had joined Government service on 4th August, 1958, thus I have completed more than 20 years service. My notice period may please be treated w.e.f. 1-1-1981."
3. The appellant states that three months notice was required by the rules of service to which the appellant belonged. The said voluntary retirement was sought under Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Rules). The Rule 48-A provides as follows:
"48-A. Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service.- (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority.
Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period." .
4. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 48-A prevents withdrawal of resignation letter except-with the approval of the authority. The said sub-rule (4) provides as follows:
"(4) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority."
5. Acting on the basis of the letter of retirement, by an order dated 20th of January, 1981 the appellant was allowed to retire voluntarily from service prospectively with effect from the afternoon of 31st March, 1981. The said order dated 20th January, 1981 read as follows:
"Shri Bal Ram Gupta, permanent Upper Division Clerk and Officiating Accountant in the Photo Division is allowed to retire voluntarily with effect from the afternoon of 31st March, 1981, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms O.M. No. 25013/7/77 Estt. (A) dated 26th August, 1977."
6. In the meantime, however, the 8appellant states that on account of persistent and personal requests from the staff members, the appellant had changed his mind and consequently had by his letter dated 31st January, 1981 withdrawn his notice of voluntary retirement. He stated in his letter that he had dropped the idea of seeking voluntary retirement and he, therefore, requested the authorities that his request for resignation might be treated as cancelled and the notice given by him treated as withdrawn. The appellant, however, was not allowed to do so. The appellant was relieved by an order dated 31st March, 1981. It was stated in the said order that his request contained in the letter dated 31st January, 1981 for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement "has also been considered and found not acceptable."
7. The appellant contended before the authorities and the High Court that in view of his letter dated 31st January, 1981 seeking withdrawal of his letter of resignation, the impugned order dated 31st March, 1981 retiring the appellant was illegal and invalid. The appellant, however, was asked to leave the office immediately. The appellant was thereafter sent the gratuity form f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
