Writ Appeal No. 1362 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 09 Feb 2011
- Bench
- GHULAM MOHAMMED, NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Therefore, the only question that is needed to be answered is whether the respondents have committed any error in not permitting the petitioner/appellant to withdraw the offer after the same is accepted by the competent authority. The learned single Judge has considered the principles…
- Para 1010. Otherwise, there is no merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J March, 2012 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO (Pre-delivered…
Judgment
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Intra Court appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the correctness of the Judgment rendered by the learned single Judge holding the action of the respondents/ A.P. Power Generation Corporation Limited, in accepting the offer of voluntary retirement of the petitioner from service as justified.
The writ petitioner/appellant was working at the relevant point of time as an Assistant Secretary with the first respondent/ A.P. Power Generation Corporation Limited (henceforth referred to as ‘A.P. GENCO’). He has drawn a detailed representation and submitted the same on 30.11.2002 seeking permission to retire from service voluntarily with effect from the afternoon of 28.02.2003, by which date, he would still be away by two years from attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner/appellant has submitted another representation
16.12.2002 requesting
respondent/Corporation to treat his earlier representation dated
30.11.2002 as withdrawn. However, the second respondent/General manager on 18.12.2002 has served the orders of the first respondent contained in G.O.O.No.552/GM(A)/2002 dated 16.12.2002 permitting the petitioner to retire from service voluntarily on 31.12.2002 and accordingly, the petitioner/ appellant was requested to get himself relieved on the afternoon of 31.12.2002 from the services of the first respondent. On 20.12.2002, the writ petitioner/appellant submitted another representation to the first respondent/ Corporation with a request to reconsider its orders dated 16.12.2002 accepting his offer for retiring from service on voluntary basis and permit him, instead to continue in service in terms of his earlier representation dated
16.12.2002.
The case of the petitioner therefore is that, after he has withdrawn his offer to retire from service voluntarily, the first respondent/Corporation could not have acted upon his offer of retiring voluntarily from service. Alternatively, it was contended that, his offer was to retire from service with effect from the afternoon of 28.02.2002, whereas, the first respondent has erred in accepting his voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.2002.
Per contra, Sri C. Raghu, learned standing counsel for the respondent/Corporation would contend that, when once the offer made by the petitioner to retire from service voluntarily has been accepted, he cannot subsequently turn round and seek to resile from the said offer. The learned standing counsel has pointed out that the Corporation has denied the allegation of the petitioner/appellant that his offer to retire voluntarily made on 30.11.2002 was accepted after he has withdrawn the same on 16.12.2002. Learned standing counsel has pointed out that the offer of the writ petitioner dated 30.11.2002 was forwarded for consideration of the Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent/Corporation who accepted the same and thereafter, orders in G.O.O.No.552/GM(A)/2002 dated 16.12.2002 were issued and they were also transmitted to the writ petitioner through the General Manager (General) and they were in fact served on the petitioner on 18.12.2002. This apart, the orders of acceptance of the offer by the writ petitioner dated 16.12.2002 were also communicated to several other officers for calculating his pay and terminal benefits. Therefore, it is improper for the petitioner/appellant to allege that the offer of the writ petitioner dated 30.11.2002 was in fact accepted by the competent authority after he has withdrawn the said offer through his representation dated 16.12.2002.
On this aspect, the learned single Judge found that the offer of the writ petitioner was duly accepted by the competent authority on
16.12.2002 and in fact the said acceptance was also transmitted on
16.12.2002. The representation submitted by the petitioner on
16.12.2002 was recommended by the General Manager (General) of the first respondent/Corporation on 16.12.2002 by forwarding the same to the General Manager (Administration) and the General Manager (Administration) in turn was required to forward the same to the Chairman and Managing director of the first respondent/ Corporation, whereas, on the same day, acceptance orders were in fact traveling in the opposite direction for reaching the petitioner. We therefore, have no hesitation to reject the contention of the writ petitioner/appellant that, his offer to retire voluntarily made on 30.11.2002 was in fact accepted by the competent authority after he has withdrawn the said offer on 16.12.2002.
Therefore, the only question that is needed to be answered is whether the respondents have committed any error in not permitting the petitioner/appellant to withdraw the offer after the same is accepted by the competent authority. The learned single Judge has considered the principles enunciated by the Supreme court in Balaram Gupta Vs. Union of India , Punjab National Bank Vs. P.K. Mittal , Power [1] [2] Finance Corporation Vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia [3] , Shambu Murari Singha Vs. Project and Development India and Anr [4] , Srikantha S.M Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Limited [5] and Vice- Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.SIDC Ltd. Vs. R. Varaprasad [6] . It will be appropriate to notice the principle enunciated in this regard in Srikantha S.M. Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Limited case, which is to the following effect: Srikantha S.M. Vs. Bharath Earth Movers Limited “9. Now, let us consider the controversy on merits.
The term 'resignation' has not been defined in the Service Rules. According to dictionary meaning, however, 'resignation' means spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right. It is conveyed by Latin maxim Resignation est juris propii spontanea refutatio. (Resignation is a spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right) In relation to an office, resignation connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. 'To relinquish an office' means 'to cease to hold the office' or 'to leave the job' or 'to leave the position'. 'To cease to hold office' or 'to loose hold of the office' implies to 'detach', 'unfasten', 'undo' or 'untie' 'the binding knot or link' which holds one to the office and the obligations and privileges that go with it.” Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.SIDC Ltd. Vs. R. Varaprasad “………when the employees have opted for VRS’ on their own without any compulsion knowing fully well about the Scheme, guidelines and circulars governing the same, it is not open to them to make any claim contrary to the terms accepted.
It is matter of contract between the Corporation and the employees. It is not for the Courts to re-write the terms of the contract, which were clear to the contracting parties, as indicated in the guidelines and circulars governing them under which Voluntary Retirement Schemes floated. While considering the earlier decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in O.P. Swarnakar and other decisions, the Apex Court held that unlike those decisions applications offering to take voluntary retirement these respondents the Scheme: their applications were accepted by the Corporation which were acknowledged by these respondents; they made representations for withdrawal from the VRS Scheme several days after the Corporation their applications made seeking accepted voluntary retirement; merely because they could not be relieved in view of the interim orders passed by the High Court in the writ petitions and that they could not be relieved immediately after the cut-off date for want of funds to be received from the Government by the Corporation, they could not take away the result or escape the consequences of voluntary retirement by the Corporation.
In other words, question of withdrawal of the acceptance of applications made seeking voluntary retirement after their acceptance did not arise and they could not be permitted to do so in law. It is fairly settled now that the voluntary retirement once accepted in terms of the Scheme or rules, as the case may be, cannot be withdrawn. ………..”
Andhra Pradesh Revised Rules, 1980, were adopted by the first respondent/Corporation. Rule 43 of these rules enables any servant to exercise the option to reitre from service voluntarily after he has put in not less than 20 years of qualifying service. The second proviso of Rule 43(1) of the aforesaid rules enables the competent authority to accept a notice of less than even three months. Note appended to Rule 43(1) of the Rules is important for our consideration which reads as follows: this rule and has given
A Government servant who has elected to retire the necessary intimation to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently except with the specific approval of such authority.
(emphasis is generated)
It is therefore manifestly clear that, once a servant has elected to retire voluntarily from service and intimates his decision to do so, he shall be precluded from withdrawing his election subsequently, except with the specific approval of such authority. Therefore, specific approval of the competent authority for resiling from the offer was needed, whereas, the writ petitioner/appellant has never sought for any such specific approval of the competent authority to resile from his offer. In the meantime, his offer was already acted upon and it was accepted by the competent authority. In fact, the acceptance of his offer to retire voluntarily was also transmitted to the writ petitioner/appellant and all other officers concerned for working out the terminal benefits payable to the writ petitioner/appellant promptly on his retirement from service on 31.12.2002.
Though, were are in complete agreement with the view of the learned single Judge, but however, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has pointed out that, if the offer of the writ petitioner, in its terms, was accepted, he would have retired from service on
28.02.2003, whereas, he has been retired two months ahead by
31.12.2002 itself and in that sense, the petitioner has been unjustly denied the benefit as he would have earned wages at least for those two months. Taking a note of this compassionate plea, when we requested the learned standing counsel for the respondents as to what would have been the difference in monetary terms, the learned standing counsel has secured necessary instructions in the matter and informed us that, the differential amount had been worked out to Rs.46,486/-. The calculation sheet furnished by the Joint Secretary of the first respondent/Corporation to the learned standing counsel has been placed before us. We have carefully scrutinized the same and we find that, it has been calculated very correctly. Taking a compassionate view of the matter, we consider it appropriate to dispose of this writ appeal directing the respondents to settle this differential amount of Rs.46,486/- by way of payment to the writ petitioner/ appellant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Otherwise, there is no merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed, but however, without costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J March, 2012 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO (Pre-delivered Judgment Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) WRIT APPEAL NO.1362 OF 2011 March, 2012 [1] AIR 1987 SC 2354 [2] (1989) Supp (2) SCC 175 [3] (1997) 4 SCC 280 [4] (2000) 5 SCC 621 [5] (2005) 8 SCC 314 [6] AIR 2003 SC 4050
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.