The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jural relationship of employer-employee does not come to an end unless the employee is relieved from duty after acceptance of voluntary retirement, as per Rule 74 of the Jharkhand Service Code and supported by legal principles from various judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

Prayers made

2. In the instant writ petition prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 18.01.2023, issued by Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest-cum-Managing Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation whereby the representation of petitioner for withdrawal from Voluntary Retirement Scheme and reinstatement in services has been rejected.

Petitioner has further prayed for direction upon the respondents to reinstate him to the post of Forest Produce Inspector/ Range Officer, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi Division from the date of his 1st representation dated 24.11.2020, after considering his withdrawal from Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

Factual Matrix

3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Forest Produce Inspector/Range Officer, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation in the year 1987 by the erstwhile State of Bihar and after bifurcation of the State, he was allocated the Jharkhand cadre. During course of his employment, he was transferred to various places where he discharged his duties diligently and successfully and rendered 33 years of unblemished service. Thereafter, the petitioner while he was posted as Range Officer, Ranchi opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme by his letter dated 27.07.2020. The request of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent-Department by order No. 42 dated 01.10.2020. Though the request for voluntary retirement scheme was accepted by the respondent-Department, the petitioner was not discharged from his services on account of the following reasons:-

i) The order No. 42 dated 01.10.2020, by which the request of petitioner was accepted, did not mention any effective date of voluntary retirement, as such the date of retirement of the petitioner cannot be determined.

ii) Since there was no relieving order by the respondents, therefore, the relationship of the employer and employee is still subsisting. There is no change in the status quo so far as relationship of employer-employee between the petitioner and respondent-Department is concerned.

iii) The retiral benefits have not been extended to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has not applied for the retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, etc.

4. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, before the effective date of retirement as also before the lapse of three months from the date of acceptance of application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, the petitioner made another application on 24.11.2020 stating inter alia therein that he wants to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement and further requested for reinstatement of his services. When no heed was paid, the petitioner made further representations on 12.08.2021 and 25.08.2021 requesting the concerned respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for withdrawal from voluntary retirement and further to reinstate the petitioner to the post of FPI/ Range Officer. When despite repeated request and representation, no action was taken on behalf of concerned respondent, the petitioner made a detailed representation on 23.09.2021 and further, on 10.10.2021, requesting therein for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner.

5. After repeated requests and reminders, the respondents conveyed the petitioner that his matter may be considered and be enlisted in the agendas of the upcoming Board Meeting. However, no concrete action was taken on the part of the concerned respondents. Even after passing of more than three months, when no positive result came out from the side of the respondents, then the petitioner filed an application (under the Right to Information Act), 2005 in the respondent-Department seeking information with respect to reinstatement matter. In reply to the same, the respondents informed the petitioner that the matter of petitioner was taken up as item No. 44/12 in 44th Board Meeting of th