Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 1259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Ravindra Singh - Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Jal Nigam Lko. Thru. M.D. & Anr. - Respondents
Service Single No. 11666 of 2021
Decided On : 07-12-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Pradip Kumar Srivastava, Renu Misra.
For the Respondent: Rishabh Kapoor.

Point of Law : Principle of liberty and its curtailment, the law must be just, fair and reasonable can also not be accepted as the Fundamental Rules are statutory rules and have been made by the Governor under Section 241(2)(b) of the Government of India Act, 1935 and the provisions of rule in question cannot be said to be unfair, unreasonable and oppressive.

Headnote:
Government of India Act, 1935 – Section 241(2)(b) – Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 309 - Financial Hand Book Rules - Rule 56, Rule 56(c) - Petitioner is an Executive Officer - He is currently posted at Construction Division - Petitioner completed the age of 59 years, rendering by that time more than 36 years of service - He was appointed as a Junior Engineer and in course of time, was promoted to post of an Assistant Engineer - He was further promoted to post of an Executive Engineer, which he current holds - Whether public interest would suffer if the petitioner is allowed to retire voluntarily and abandon post.
Findings of the court :
Parties at ad idem about fact that N is in a precarious financial position - At same time, N is a public body charged with duty of managing water supply and sewerage all over State - Petitioner is obviously a Senior Engineer and experienced in particular nature of work, that is involved in operations of N - If Nigam say that there has been a reduction in work force of their Class-A Officers, it would certainly and pre-eminently be N’s decision to judge whether public interest would suffer if petitioner is allowed to retire voluntarily and abandon post - It also cannot be ignored that petitioner is not an entry-level Engineer or a fresh recruit, who can be replaced with another like him at short notice and before his scheduled retirement -Therefore, in circumstances, discretion exercised by Nigam to refuse voluntary retirement, cannot be said to be arbitrary, whimsical, capricious or perverse - Decision is one taken in public interest, which does not warrant interference by this Court.
Result : Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is directed against orders dated 03.11.2020 and 24.02.2021 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, refusing the petitioner's notice to voluntarily retire from service.

2. The petitioner is an Executive Officer in the employ of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Lucknow. He is currently posted at the Construction Division of the Nigam at Baghpat. The petitioner completed the age of 59 years on December the 13th, 2020, rendering by that time more than 36 years of service. He was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 22.09.1984 and in course of time, was promoted to the post of an Assistant Engineer. He was further promoted to the post of an Executive Engineer, which he current holds. The petitioner submitted a request to the Managing Director of the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (for short, 'the Nigam') through an application dated 01.10.2020, seeking to voluntarily retire from service, in exercise of his right under the U.P. Fundamental Rule 56(c) of the Financial Hand Book Vol. II (Parts II to IV). The aforesaid Rules shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the Rules'.

3. It was indicated in the application dated 01.10.2020 that the request may be regarded as three months' notice to voluntarily retire from service. The petitioner's notice to voluntarily retire was rejected by the Nigam in terms of an order of November the 3rd, 2020 passed by the Secretary (Administration) to the Nigam. It was said in the order that the petitioner's request was considered, but was not acceded to in public interest.

4. On 11th November, 2020, the petitioner addressed another memo to the Managing Director of the Nigam and requested a review of the order dated 03.11.2020. It was said in the memo/ representation dated 11.11.2020 that the petitioner was finding himself unable to serve the Nigam any further on account of his family and personal circumstances and, therefore, the employers may reconsider his request, seeking voluntary retirement, sympathetically. The memo dated 11.11.2020 remained unresponded to.

5. The petitioner then made another application dated 02.12.2020, also addressed to the Managing Director of the Nigam. Here, the relevant provisions of Rule 56 of the Rules were quoted and the Nigam were informed that the petitioner had a right to retire voluntarily at the end of three months' notice period under Rule 56(c). It was said in this application that the three months' notice period would expire on 31.12.2020 and the petitioner would treat himself retired from the Nigam's service w.e.f. 31.12.2020. The Managing Director was requested to arrange transfer of charge by nominating an Officer for the purpose. The Superintending Engineer, First Division, U.P. Jal Nigam, Meerut addressed a memo dated 29.12.2020 to the Chief Engineer (Rural Area), U.P. Jal Nigam, Ghaziabad, apprising him of the petitioner's request. It was also requested by the Superintending Engineer that the Chief Engineer may ensure acceptance of the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement and make arrangement for transfer of charge.

6. It is the petitioner's case that no Officer was deputed to relieve him on 31.12.2020 by the Nigam and he could not relinquish charge on the said date. On the 24th of February, 2021, the Secretary (Administration) to the Nigam passed a further order, notifying the decision to reject the petitioner's request for a review of the earlier order dated 03.11.2020, declining the petitioner's notice seeking voluntary retirement. The order dated 24th February, 2021 indicated that the petitioner's request has been refused in public interest. The public interest was disclosed to be the fact that in comparison to the month of November, 2020, Officers working in the Class-A Cadre of the Nigam had witnessed a drastic reduction in strength. It was mentioned that in these circumstances, it was not possible to accede to the petitioner's request for a voluntary retirement from service.

7. Aggrieved by the orders dated 03.11.2020 and 24.02.2021 p