2022 Supreme(Bom) 35
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
A.S. Chandurkar, G.A. Sanap, JJ.
Sadiq Shafi Qureshi – Appellant
Versus
M.D. and C.E.O., Union Bank of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.1770 of 2021
Decided On : 25-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri S.S.Qureshi, petitioner in person.
For the Respondent:Shri C.S.Samudra, Advocate
An employee can withdraw a notice of voluntary retirement before the intended date of retirement, subject to approval of the Appointing Authority. However, accepting retirement benefits disentitles the employee to the relief of reinstatement.
Headnote:
Voluntary Retirement - Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 29(4)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an 'Assistant Manager' at Corporation Bank, sought to withdraw his voluntary retirement application and be reinstated in service. The Bank refused his request, and the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking reinstatement with continuity in service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement before the intended date of retirement. However, the petitioner's conduct of accepting various retirement benefits for over three years disentitled him to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement could have been withdrawn prior to the intended date of retirement. 2. The effect of non-consideration of the petitioner's request for withdrawing the notice of voluntary retirement. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of reinstatement despite accepting retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement before the intended date of retirement. The Bank's failure to consider the petitioner's request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement was held against the Bank. However, the petitioner's conduct of accepting retirement benefits for over three years disentitled him to the relief of reinstatement.
Final Decision: The writ petition seeking reinstatement was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
A.S.Chandurkar, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner, who was serving as ‘Assistant Manager’ with the erstwhile Corporation Bank which has now merged with Union Bank of India (for short, the Bank), has challenged the communication dated 15.05.2020 issued to him by the Bank by virtue of which the petitioner has been informed that his services were relieved on 14.09.2017 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and in accordance with the Corporation Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short, the Pension Regulations,1995). Consequently, the petitioner prays that his applications dated 13.09.2017 and 12.03.2020 be accepted and he be permitted to withdraw his notice of resignation/voluntary retirement. The petitioner further prays for his reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The petitioner who appeared in person submitted that while he was in service with the Corporation Bank he had taken various steps to intervene in contempt proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for recovery of dues against Mr. V.Mallya. While serving as ‘Assistant Manager’ at Pune Branch of the Corporation Bank he submitted an undated letter of resignation on 06.05.2017. However, he was informed by the Bank that his undated letter of resignation could not be accepted considering the form in which it was sent. The petitioner was informed that if he desired to resign from the service, he was free to submit his letter of resignation through proper channel. Thereafter on 22.05.2017 the petitioner again sought to resign from service. On 06.09.2017 the petitioner was informed by his employer that after considering his letter of resignation dated 22.05.2017 as well as subsequent letter dated 04.08.2017, the notice period of three months would expire on 21.08.2017. Since the petitioner had availed leave for the period of twenty four days from the date of submission of his request for voluntary resignation, his relieving date would be 14.09.2017. The request made by the petitioner for treating such relieving date as 04.11.2017 was not accepted by the Bank. Thereafter on 13.09.2017 the petitioner issued another communication requesting the Bank to consider his request of withdrawing the resignation/voluntary retirement application and not to relieve him from service. This letter was forwarded to the superior Authority of the Bank and on 20.09.2017 the petitioner was informed that an amount of Rs.1,73,516.44 was recoverable from him. In the meanwhile the petitioner was relieved from duties on 14.09.2017. Thereafter on 12.03.2020 the petitioner made yet another request to the Bank to permit him to withdraw the letter of resignation/voluntary retirement and reinstate him in service. The petitioner was informed by the communication dated 15.05.2020 that his request for withdrawing the voluntary retirement application could not be considered. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking reinstatement with continuity in service.
4. After merger of the Corporation Bank with the Union Bank of India from 01.04.2020, reply has been filed by the respondents through its Senior Manager at the Regional Office. It has been stated therein that the petitioner sought to voluntary resign from service and this request was considered in accordance with Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. It was brought to notice of the petitioner on 13.08.2017 that though his letter dated 22.05.2017 mentioned that he was submitting his voluntary resignation under Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995, the said provision related to voluntary retirement and not resignation. The petitioner responded to the same on 04.08.2017 by confirming that he had applied for voluntary retirement under Clause 29 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 and that his application be considered accordingly. A confirmation let