VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Although an employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the effective date but it cannot be withdrawn or allowed to be withdrawn after effective date. Relationship of master and service gets terminated w.e.f. effective date.

Headnote:(i) Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985-Section 3(q) r/w 14-Respondent No. 3 an IPS official for voluntary retirement-Accepted taler withdrew-Appellant filing petition in CAT as it affected his seniority-Contention that appellant has no locus standi and that CAT has no jurisdiction-Dismissed-Affirmed by High Court-SLP against dismissed-Can it be raised again in the hearing of main proceeding s appeal? (No).
       Held : We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Jethmalani. As has been pointed out hereinabove, against the portion of the impugned judgment which held that the Appellant had locus and that the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction, Respondent No. 3 had filed a Special Leave Petition. That has been dismissed by this Court on 10th December, 2000. It is therefore not open to Respondent No. 3 to again raise these contentions. These findings in the impugned judgment have become final as against Respondent No. 3. Even otherwise, we see no substance in these submissions. (Para 20)
       (ii) All India Services (Death-Cum- Retirement) Rules, 1958-Rule 16(2A) -Voluntary Retirement on three months notice on completing qualifying service of 20 years-Respondent No.3 on 5.5.93 making request of voluntary retirement with immediate effect on depositing 3 month s pay in lieu of notice-Government accepted it on 2.3.95 w.e.f. May 93-When retirement became effective?-(On 2.3.95) -Whether communication of acceptance necessary to terminate master and servant relationship? (No)-Withdrawal of voluntary retirement on 18.4.95 by respondent 3 whether permissible? (No)-Government order of 14.8.97 permitting withdrawal-Whether can be sustained? (No)-Quashing of said order by CAT is correct-High Court was wrong in setting that order aside-Appeals allowed.
       Held : We have considered the submissions of both the parties. As has been set out, in Shambhu Murari s case and Bank of India s case, an employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the effective date. The effective date would necessarily be the date on which the retirement takes effect. The request, which Respondent No. 3 had made by his letter dated 5th May, 1993, was to be allowed to retire voluntarily with immediate effect. He had also deposited Rs.30,870/- in lieu of three months notice. Thus so far as Respondent No. 3 was concerned the effective date was 5th May, 1993. Of course Rule 16(2A) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958 provides that a notice of retirement had to be accepted by the Government of India. In this case, the Government of India accepted the request on 2nd March, 1995 and permitted Respondent No. 3 to retire with effect from May 1993. The moment Government of India accepted the notice the retirement became effective. The relationship of master and servant came to an end. We are unable to accept the submission that the relationship of master and servant did not terminate till the acceptance was communicated to Respondent No. 3. It must be remembered that Rules 16(2) and 16(2A) enable a member to retire from service on giving the required notice. Once such a notice is given it merely has to be accepted by the Government of India. The moment it is accepted the retirement would become effective. If any other view is taken it would lead to absurd results. Such a view would mean that even though a member had given a notice for voluntary retirement stopped attending office and/or gone away abroad and/or taken up some other employment after a number of years of absence the member could claim to come back into service because the Government, for some unforeseen reasons, had not communicated its acceptance. Taken to its absurd length such a member could after superannuation claim that, as the services were not terminated, he was entitled to pension and gratuity on the basis that he had continued in service. The requirement of communication of acceptance would only arise in cases where, even after giving of a notice of voluntary retirement the member continues to work/perform his duties. In such cases the member would need to know from what date he can stop attending office. In cases where the member has by his own conduct abandoned service the severance of the relationship of master and servant takes place immediately on acceptance of notice. We are unable to accept the submission that the severance of relationship of master and servant cannot take effect until there is an Order by the President of India and the same is duly notified in the Gazette. Rules 16(2) and 16(2A) have been set out hereinabove. All that it requires is acceptance by the Government of India and not by the President of India. Admittedly the request for voluntary retirement has been accepted by the Government of India on 2nd March, 1995. No provision or rule could be shown which requires such acceptance to be gazetted. On the contrary, as has been set out hereinabove, in its affidavit before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Government of Punjab had categorically stated that there was no provision for gazetting such an order. (Para 27)
       That the relationship of master and servant had been severed is clear from the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3 in this Court. The relevant portion has been reproduced hereinabove. Even according to Respondent No. 3 no posting order had been issued to him. According to Respondent No. 3 the Government of India had struck off, his name from the Gradation list, no salary was paid to him and 8 letters have been issued declaring that he has retired from service. (Para 28)
       Held also : We are unable to accept Mr. Jethmalani s submission that, Respondent No. 3 had been sent abroad and asked to take up employment with a foreign firm by the Government. There is no proof of such a case. Neither the Government of India nor the Governments of Punjab/Haryana state that this was so. This appears to us to be an argument in desperation. (Para 29)
       In view of the above it is held that the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the relationship or master and servant had not been terminated. As has been set out hereinabove, the relationship of master and servant had been terminated before Respondent No. 3 sought to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement on 18th April, 1995. Once relationship of master and servant had been severed and/or terminated, by this back door method, Respondent No. 3 could not get back to service. The Order of the Government of India dated 14th August, 1997 cannot be sustained and was correctly quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In this view of the matter the impugned Judgment requires to be and is hereby set aside. The Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 3rd February, 1998 is restored. (Para 30)
       Accordingly the Appeals are allowed with costs. (Para 32)
       Held, however : In view of what has happened in the past it needs to be clarified that Respondent No. 3 has ceased to be in Government service with effect from May 1993 in the rank/position that he then held. There is now no necessity of issuing an order terminating his service. All that is required is correction of official record if they purport to show that Respondent No.3 has continued in service. So far as Respondent No. 3 is concerned, this Judgment and Order of Central Administrative Tribunal are notice to him that his request for voluntary retirement dated 5th May, 1993 has taken effect from May, 1993. It goes without saying that with effect from May 1993 Respondent No. 3 would not be entitled to any pay or any other consequential benefits. It is expected that if any pay and/or benefits have been given to him the same would be returned/reimbursed by him so that the concerned Government is not forced to recover the same. (Para 33)

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-Leave granted.

2. These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 4th July, 2001.

3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

Respondent No. 3 worked in the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) of the Government of India from 1982 to September 1990. With effect from October 1990 Respondent No. 3 was repatriated to the State of Punjab. He did not join duty till 30th September, 1991. On 24th October 1991, i.e. 23 days later, Respondent No. 3 applies for Ex-India leave. Even before the leave could be sanctioned Respondent No. 3 leaves India and goes to England. From England he again applies for further leave. Leave is sanctioned till 10th January, 1992. Respondent No. 3 is informed that no further extension would be granted even on medical grounds. Respondent No. 3 still does not join duty. He then sends in, on 30th June, 1992, an application for voluntary retirement. However, on 19th July, 1992, he sends a telegram withdrawing his application for voluntary retirement. As Respondent No. 3 continues to remain absent he was charge-sheeted on 14th January, 1993. On 12th April, 1993 he reports for duty in the Office of the D.G.P., Punjab.

4. On 5th May, 1993 he again applies for voluntary retirement with immediate effect. He deposits Rs.30,870/- in lieu of three months advance notice. Respondent No. 3 does not even wait for his application to be accepted. He again goes away abroad. As Respondent No. 3 had applied for voluntary retirement DGP, Punjab recommends that the charge-sheet against him be withdrawn. On 27th September, 1993 the Government of India rejects the request for voluntary retirement on the ground that three months notice period had not been given. The Government of Punjab by its representations dated 29th September, 1993 and 8th July, 1994 requests the Government of India to accept the application for voluntary retirement. This request is again turned down by the Government of India on 13th September, 1994. As Respondent No. 3 was not even in India and was not reporting for duty the Government of Punjab, on 29th November, 1994, points out to the Government of India that Respondent No. 3 has not been attending office since 5th May, 1993 and that his three months notice period may be considered from the date of application i.e. 5th May, 1993 and he may be allowed to voluntary retirement. On 2nd March, 1995 the Government of India permits Respondent No. 3 to retire from service with effect from May, 1993. It may be mentioned that in the meantime, on the recommendation of the D.G.P., Punjab, the charge-sheet had been dropped against Respondent No. 3. This was done in view of the fact that he was retiring voluntarily.

5. In his application for voluntary retirement, Respondent No. 3 had given his contact address as follows:

"Sh. R.K. Sharma,

R-862, New Rajinder Nagar,

New Delhi - 110 060."

The order of the Government of India dated 2nd March, 1995 permitting Respondent No.3 to retire from service was forwarded to Respondent No.3 at the above mentioned address. It was however received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks "despite repeated visits, could not be delivered to addressee as he was not available". The D.G.P., Punjab therefore deputes a Constable to deliver the Order to Respondent No.3. When the Constable goes to the above address the father-in-law of Respondent No. 3 states that no officer by name R.K. Sharma stays in this house. The father-in-law further states that he knows nothing about R.K. Sharma.

6. On 18th April, 1995 Respondent No. 3 withdraws his request for voluntary retirement. Significantly, the address given in his letter is the above mentioned address. This shows that Respondent No. 3 was purposely evading receipt of Government Order dated 2nd March, 1995. On 20th June, 1995 the Government of India rejects his request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement on the ground that the period within which such request could be made had already expired. By his letters

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 136

VERY IMPORTANT POINTAlthough an employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the effective date but it cannot be withdrawn or allowed to be withdrawn after effective date. Relationship of master and service gets terminated w.e.f. effective date.

Cases Referred (5)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Although an employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the effective date but it cannot be withdrawn or allowed to be withdrawn after effective date. Relationship of master and service gets terminated w.e.f. effective date.