SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Dr. Dileshwar Prasad Bhatpahare (Died), Through Legal Heirs : Smt. Ratna Devi, (wife of Late Dr. Dileshwar Prasad Bhatpahare) and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department and Ors. - Respondents
WPS No. 2045 Of 2014
Decided On : 11-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghvendra Verma.

An employee has the right to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement before the jural relationship of employee and employer comes to an end.

Headnote:

Voluntary Retirement - Service Matter - Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 - Rule 42(1)(a), Rule 42(2) - The court discussed the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement, withdrawal of the application, and the respondent's acceptance of the retirement application. The court referred to the Shambu Murari Sinha Vs. Project & Development India Ltd. case and highlighted the employee's right to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement before the jural relationship of employee and employer comes to an end. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the payment of salary and retiral benefits to the petitioner's legal heirs.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a State Programme Officer, applied for voluntary retirement due to health and family reasons. His application was initially not considered, and despite subsequent attempts to withdraw the application and seek non-consideration, the respondent authorities allowed the retirement application in an arbitrary manner. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondent authorities did not consider the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement and allowed it without addressing the petitioner's attempts to withdraw the application. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the payment of salary and retiral benefits to the petitioner's legal heirs.

Issues: The main issue was the arbitrary acceptance of the petitioner's voluntary retirement application without considering his attempts to withdraw the application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Shambu Murari Sinha case, emphasizing the employee's right to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement before the jural relationship of employee and employer comes to an end. The court held that the respondent authorities could not refuse to accept the withdrawal application as it was sent before the jural relationship ended.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the payment of salary and retiral benefits to the petitioner's legal heirs.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31.01.2014 (Annexure P/1) whereby the application of the petitioner for voluntarily retirement was allowed with effect from 20.08.2013.

2. Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was temporarily posted as State Programme Officer (Leprosy) in the office of Directorate Health Services, Raipur vide order dated 19.11.2010. Accordingly, the petitioner rendered his service with utmost sincerity and honesty as State Programme Officer. The copy of the order dated 19.11.2010 is filed as Annexure P/3. As the petitioner suffered from cardiac disease, he made an application for medical leave on 08.04.2013. The copy of the medical leave application is filed as Annexure P/4. In the meanwhile, Dr. K.C. Uraon was posted as State Programme Officer (Leprosy) in the place of petitioner vide order dated 09.05.2013. The copy of the order dated 09.05.2013 is filed as Annexure P/5. Thereafter, the petitioner resumed his duty on 20.05.2013. As the petitioner was not provided joining, then he made an application informing that as he resumed his duty on 20.05.2013 accordingly, he may be posted to his original place of posting i.e. District Leprosy Officer. The copy of application dated 19.07.2013 is filed as Annexure P/6.

3. On 20.08.2013, due to health and family reasons, the petitioner made an application for voluntary retirement. The voluntary retirement application of the petitioner was not considered and even in the meanwhile, the petitioner himself made an application for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement on 21.10.2013 (Annexure P/7). In the above course, the petitioner again made an application for non-consideration of his voluntary retirement application on 24.12.2013 and to provide him joining to his original place of posting i.e. District Leprosy Officer, Bilaspur but no action was taken. The copy of the representation dated 24.12.2013 is filed as Annexure P/8.

4. Even in the meanwhile, one Dr. Netram Beck was appointed as State Programme Officer (Leprosy) on 05.09.2013 and accordingly the post of petitioner was also not vacant. The petitioner made repeated representations for non-consideration of his voluntary retirement application as the State Govt. did not accept the application of the petitioner and also form 29 was not issued to the petitioner in respect to his retiral claims, but no action was taken even after a lapse of about 4 months. The copy of the order dated 05.09.2013 is filed as Annexure P/9. On 28.01.2014, the petitioner again made an application to provide him joining to his original place of posting but no action was taken by the respondent authorities. The copy of the representation dated 28.01.2014 is filed as Annexure P/10. Since, no action was being taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner was left with no option other than to prefer writ petition before this Court and, therefore, he filed the writ petition having W.P.(S) No. 685/2014 and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.2014 (Annexure P/11) with direction that if petitioner files representation, the same shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of six weeks. In compliance of the said order, petitioner submitted the representation in the office of respondent no.4 and also respondents no.1 to 3 through speed post on 10.02.2014. The copy of the representation is filed as Annexure P/12.

5. On 12.02.2014, respondent no.4 communicated the impugned order dated 31.01.2014, which was received by the petitioner on 19.02.2014 whereby it has been stated that the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement has been allowed. The copy of the order dated 31.01.2014 and copy of letter dated 12.02.2014 are annexed as Annexure P/1 and Annexure P/2 respectively. Before the recommendation made by respondent no.3 for the application of voluntary retirement of the petitioner before

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top