2009 Supreme(SC) 1562

2009(7) Supreme 548
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and R. M. Lodha, JJ.
Padubidri Damodar Shenoy — Appellant
versus
Indian Airlines Limited & Anr. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6186 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3514 of 2008)
Decided on : 10-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Where the notice for voluntary retirement by an employee who had not attained 55 years but had completed 20 years of continuous service, under proviso appended to Regulation 12(b), was subject to approval by the competent authority and that approval was not granted, the voluntary retirement of the respondent never came into effect.

Headnote:Service Regulations for Employees (other than those in the Flying Crew and those in the Aircraft Engineering Departments) – Regulation 12 – Appellant who joined services of Indian Airlines Limited – respondent. 1 as Traffic Assistant was promoted to post of Manager, Mumbai Airport - Appellant applied for voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003 – Appellant gave a notice of his intention to voluntarily retire from service on completion of three months from the date of the notice as the appellant had completed 29 years of service – However received a communication from respondents that his request for voluntary retirement from service had not been acceded to by competent authority – Writ petition thereagainst – Nothing to indicate in Regulation 12 that if employer decides to withhold approval of voluntary retirement, such refusal of approval must be communicated to the petitioner during the period of notice – True it is that notice of three months for voluntary retirement given by an employee covered by clause (b) remains valid even if no communication is received within notice period but it becomes effective only on its approval by the competent authority – Admittedly competent authority neither gave approval nor indicated disapproval to the appellant within the notice period of three months – The employee never treated that there has been cessation of employment on expiry of three months notice period inasmuch as he continued to attend his duties even thereafter – Even after expiry of notice period, the appellant continued to attend his duties for many months thereafter – Respondent communicated to the appellant that his application for voluntary retirement under Service Regulation 12(b) had not been acceded to by the competent authority – Since the notice for voluntary retirement by an employee who had not attained 55 years but had completed 20 years of continuous service, under proviso appended to Regulation 12(b), was subject to approval by the competent authority and that approval was not granted, the voluntary retirement of the respondent never came into effect – Hence held that ultimate decision of the Division Bench did not suffer from any legal infirmity – Appeal dismissed. (Para 32 to 35)

       Facts of the Case :

        Appellant who joined services of Indian Airlines Limited – respondent. 1 as Traffic Assistant was promoted to post of Manager, Mumbai Airport .Appellant applied for voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003 .Appellant gave a notice of his intention to voluntarily retire from service on completion of three months from the date of the notice as the appellant had completed 29 years of service .However appellant received a communication from respondents that his request for voluntary retirement from service had not been acceded to by competent authority.

        2. Issue in consideration in present appeal by special leave, was regarding interpretation and construction of Regulation 12 of Service Regulations for Employees (other than those in the Flying Crew and those in the Aircraft Engineering Departments) framed by respondent no. 1.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held there was nothing to indicate in Regulation 12 that if employer decides to withhold approval of voluntary retirement, such refusal of approval must be communicated to the petitioner during the period of notice . True it is that notice of three months for voluntary retirement given by an employee covered by clause (b) remains valid even if no communication is received within notice period but it becomes effective only on its approval by the competent authority. Admittedly competent authority neither gave approval nor indicated disapproval to the appellant within the notice period of three months. The employee never treated that there has been cessation of employment on expiry of three months notice period inasmuch as he continued to attend his duties even thereafter .Even after expiry of notice period, the appellant continued to attend his duties for many months thereafter. Respondent communicated to the appellant that his application for voluntary retirement under Service Regulation 12(b) had not been acceded to by the competent authority. Since the notice for voluntary retirement by an employee who had not attained 55 years but had completed 20 years of continuous service, under proviso appended to Regulation 12(b), was subject to approval by the competent authority and that approval was not granted, the voluntary retirement of the respondent never came into effect. Hence held that ultimate decision of the Division Bench did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Appeal was dismissed.