Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Matsyodari Shikshan Sanstha & Another - Petitioners
Versus
Nandkumar S/o. Santram Malshkhare & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2928 of 2018
Decided On : 25-03-2022
Service Matters - Retirement From Service - Forced To Resign - Respondent No.1, who is a retired lecturer and who had sought voluntary retirement has raised a dispute by contending that he was forced to resign - He accepted his entire dues under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and after 4 years 5 months and 15 days, has preferred an appeal – Whether he was seriously under any pressure or whether it is just a “case of take a chance litigation” resorted to by the appellant, I called upon him to deposit the entire amount which he had received without any demur or any murmur or any protest - Held, I find this case befitting to be termed as ‘take a chance’ litigation at the behest of the appellant who can be said to have abused the process of law by approaching the University & College Tribunal after four years, five months and 15 days. If this Court decides to blink at such cases, or turn a blind eye, litigants like the present appellant who is a highly qualified Professor, would indulge in abusing process of law - Entire factors involved in this case are so glaring and convincing that there is no necessity to have his appeal being registered, much less to be decided on the basis of the averments - It would cause unnecessary loss of precious time of Tribunal as well as expenditure to be incurred by the petitioner management on account of no fault on its part. Further abuse of process of law can be averted and should be avoided. It is obvious that the College Tribunal did not apply its mind to this factor - Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with and heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. While issuing notice and granting ad interim protection, this Court had passed the following order on 23.03.2018:-
[2] Grievance is that respondent No.1, who is a retired lecturer and who had sought voluntary retirement on 31/01/2012, has raised a dispute by contending that he was forced to resign. He accepted his entire dues under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and after 4 years 5 months and 15 days, has preferred an appeal. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs. Mansing 2012 (AIR) SCW 2488.
[3] Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 03/04/2018.
[4] Learned AGP waives service for respondent No.3.
[5] Until the returnable date in this matter, the impugned order dated 08/02/2018 shall stand stayed and Appeal No. BAMU04 of 2018 before the University and College Tribunal, Aurangabad shall be adjourned.
[6] Copies of the petition paper book shall be supplied for issuance of notice on or before 03/04/2018, failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court on 04/04/2018.”
3. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides and have perused the record available.
4. At the very outset, the learned Advocate for the appellant, respondent no.1 herein, submits on instructions that he is not agreeable to deposit the entire amount of Rs.23,77,117/- received by him at the time when he was relieved from employment after tendering his resignation. He is not desirous of parting with the amount since, presently, he does not have the capacity to repay the amount.
5. The facts that emerged from the record are as under:-
(b) He tendered his resignation on 11.10.2010 under his own signature. He prayed that the same be accepted and be acted upon.
(c) The management had not initiated steps to accept the said resignation.
(d) On 7.01.2011, he withdrew the said resignation contending that he was under mental pressure due to domestic problems. The management respected his request and did not proceed with the resignation letter.
(e) The appellant then tendered a resignation letter on 25.07.2011 praying that the same be accepted after 90 days w.e.f. 22.10.2011. Copy of the said letter was served on the Joint Director, Higher Education, Aurangabad Division.
(f) Three days prior to the expiry of the 90 days period, the appellant withdrew the said resignation letter vide communication dated 19.10.2011 again contending that the domestic problems were creating mental pressure and as his pressure reduced, he was withdrawing the resignation.
(g) The management permitted him to withdraw his resignation.
(h) The appellant then again tendered a resignation on 03.11.2011 indicating that he personally did not desire to continue in employment and the resignation should be accepted after 90 days w.e.f. 01.02.2012.
(i) On 04.11.2011, the appellant reminded the petitioner employer that he should be paid his unpaid salary for the period 23.10.2011 to 31.10.2011 (8 days). In the same communication, he has prayed for his unpaid salary of March, 2011 and some period of the years 1990-91. He has also prayed for his salary of March, 2011 and two months salary of the years 1991-92.
(j) The petitioner management waited for the expiry of the 90 days and finally accepted the resignation of the appellant dated 03.11.2021, on 31.01.2012 and made the same effective from 01.02.2012 as per the request of the appellant.
(k) The petitioner manage
Resignation – Withdrawal of such resignation by employee prior to effective date is permissible.
A resignation cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.
A pragmatic approach is essential in condoning delays in pension claims, prioritizing substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural timelines.
Limitation – It is not length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining plea for condonation of delay, it is cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined ....
The Tribunal erred in attributing delay in pension payment to the petitioner; interest at 6% is due under Clause-5 of the government resolution for delayed retiral benefits.
An employee's request for voluntary retirement can be withdrawn before it takes effect, and the intention behind the request must be considered in determining its nature.
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
