Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MAHAVEER KHARIWAL – RESPONDENT
Civil Appeal No. 2760 of 2010
Decided on : 22-01-2021
Service Law – Voluntary Retirement – Rejection of application for voluntary retirement – An employee is entitled to apply for voluntary retirement after he has completed 20 years of qualifying service – He can apply for voluntary retirement by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to appointing authority – Where appointing authority does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before expiry of period specified in notice, there shall be deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement application and retirement shall become effective from date of expiry of period mentioned in notice – In present case, application of employee submitting voluntary retirement application with a request for curtailment of notice of three months was absolutely in consonance with Regulation 29 – Request made by employee for curtailment of the period of notice of three months was required to be considered by appointing authority on merits and only in a case where it is found that curtailment of period of notice may cause any administrative inconvenience, request for curtailment of period of three months’ notice can be rejected – Communication rejecting application of employee for voluntary retirement does not reflect any compliance of Sub-Regulation 3(b) of Regulation 29 – As such, no reasons whatsoever have been assigned/given except stating that request is not in accordance with Pension Regulations, 1995 – Rejection of application for voluntary retirement was not on ground that notice of three months is not given – Request made by employee for curtailment of notice of three months was also not considered on merits – Rejection was bad in law and contrary to Regulation 29 – Division Bench of High Court is absolutely justified in quashing and setting aside impugned communication – Employee shall be entitled to all retiral benefits on the basis of his voluntary retirement – Other subsequent proceedings of departmental enquiry will be null and void and shall be non est, as after voluntary retirement, there shall not be an employer-employee relationship – Appeal dismissed. [Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 – Regulations 29 and 3(b)] (Paras 10, 12 and 13)
Facts of the Case:
Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 246 of 2007, by which the Division Bench has allowed appeal preferred by respondent herein and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by Single Judge and has quashed and set aside communication dated 20.04.2004 of the bank rejecting the application for voluntary retirement and has directed appellant-bank to release retiral dues of the respondent in accordance with the Pension Regulations, 1995 with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of writ petition, the employer-bank has preferred the present appeal. Question which is posed for consideration before this Court is, whether the rejection of request of the employee for voluntary retirement vide communication dated 20.04.2004 was legal and in consonance with Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 or not.
Findings of Court:
No reasons whatsoever have been assigned/given except stating that the request is not in accordance with Pension Regulations, 1995. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that even the communication dated 20.04.2004 was on the last day of the third month, i.e., 90th day from the date of submitting the voluntary retirement application. Therefore, there was no reason to reject the prayer of curtailment of the period of notice considering the grounds mention in Sub-Regulation 3(b) of Regulation 29.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.02.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Letters Patent Appeal No. 246 of 2007, by which the Division Bench has allowed the said appeal preferred by the respondent herein and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and has quashed and set aside communication dated 20.04.2004 of the bank rejecting the application for voluntary retirement and has directed the appellant-bank to release retiral dues of the respondent in accordance with the Pension Regulations, 1995 with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of writ petition, the employer-bank has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:
That the respondent herein - original writ petitioner - employee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employee’) was working with the appellant bank - employer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘employer’), who was promoted as Chief Manager SMG-IV. In March, 1998, he was transferred and posted as Chief Manager, Colombo Branch, Colombo. Thereafter, by order dated 13.05.2013, he was transferred from Colombo overseas branch to the Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi as Chief Manager (BM). The employee applied for 30 days’ leave to visit London as his son was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, the employee wrote to the employer seeking extension of leave. The application for leave as well as the application for extension of leave were refused by the employer and the employee was directed to report on duty at Defence Colony Branch, New Delhi. That on 21.01.2004, the employee submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement from the services of the employer in accordance with Circular No. 32/97-98 dated 15th July, 1997 and the format given by the employer for submitting the notice of voluntary retirement. In the application for voluntary retirement, the employee requested for waiver of three months’ notice, as required under Regulation 29 of the Indian Bank Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pension Regulations, 1995’) and requested/authorised the employer to deduct the salary of the notice period from out of the amount payable by the employer on retirement. The employer vide letter dated 20.04.2004, which was served on the employee on 23.04.2004, rejected the request of the employee for voluntary retirement on the ground that the employee was not eligible under Pension Regulations, 1995.
3. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the application for voluntary retirement, the employee preferred Writ Petition (C) No. 16972 of 2005. One another prayer was for a direction to the employer to reimburse the educational expenses for the son of the employee, who had been sent to Singapore for his education while he was posted at Colombo. One another prayer was for grant of traveling allowance bills for the journey from Colombo to New Delhi, which was declined by the employer on account of delay in submitting the bills. The learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 11.10.2006 dismissed the writ petition so far as challenge to the rejection of his voluntary retirement application vide communication dated 20.04.2004. However, granted the prayers for traveling allowance bills and educational expenses.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition with respect to his prayer to quash the letter dated 20.04.2004 rejecting his request for voluntary retirement, the employee preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, by the impugned judgment and order, has allowed the said Letters Patent Appeal and has quashed and set aside the letter dated 20.04.2004 and has directed the employer to release retiral dues of the employee in accordance
SupremeToday
(1) Application for voluntary retirement cannot be rejected de hors statutory regulations.(2) after voluntary retirement, there shall not be an employer-employee relationship and subsequent proceedin....
Voluntary retirement requires explicit acceptance from the appointing authority and cannot be deemed effective solely based on a lack of response.
The judgment established the distinction between resignation and voluntary retirement, upheld the disqualification of pensionary benefits in case of resignation, and emphasized that the petitioner kn....
When the petitioner was not eligible to submit a notice to retire under Rule 48-A, rejection was beyond the period of three months and the petitioner is deemed to have retired is unsustainable.
The discretion to seek voluntary retirement lies with the government servant, and the request for voluntary retirement does not require acceptance by the employer. The court emphasized the deemed acc....
An employee cannot withdraw a request for voluntary retirement once it has been accepted and becomes effective, as per the Pension Rules.
Employees who opt for voluntary retirement under a scheme are bound by the terms of the scheme, which may exclude certain pension benefits.
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
