Bidhi Chand vs Punjab and Haryana High Court and Another

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner, who was serving as Reader Grade-I to the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mansa and having been deputed to work as Reader with Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sardulgarh submitted a three months notice dated 28.2.2011 for premature retirement from service i.e. to take effect w.e.f. 31.5.2011. Prior to the effective date i.e. 31.5.2011, the District & Sessions Judge, Mansa vide order dated 3.3.2011 informed the petitioner that under the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, the request of the petitioner had been accepted and as such, he would stand retired from govt. service w.e.f. 31.5.2011 after noon on completion of 30 years of service. The intervening period from 1.3.2011 to 31.5.2011 would be treated as three months prior notice as per requirement under the rules. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 24.5.2011 for withdrawal of his request for premature retirement. However, such request was rejected vide order dated 31.5.2011 by the District & Sessions Judge, Mansa (Annexure P-4). Even the representation filed by the petitioner before this Court stands rejected vide order dated 31.7.2012 (Annexure P-6). Against such factual backdrop, the instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the impugned orders dated 31.5.2011 (Annexure P-4) and 31.7.2012 (Annexure P-6) and for seeking directions to respondents to reinstate him in service.

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

The facts are not in dispute.

The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether it was open for the petitioner to have withdrawn his request for premature retirement prior to the effective date of retirement that was mentioned in his notice i.e. 31.5.2011 inspite of the competent authority having accepted the request on 3.3.2011 itself i.e. prior to the effective date of retirement?

Identical question came up for consideration before the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of J.N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, . The facts of such case were that Sh. J.N. Srivastava had submitted his request for voluntary retirement with a three months notice on 3.10.1989 and as such, was to come into effect from 31.1.1990. Such request came to be accepted by the competent authority on 2.11.1989 itself i.e. prior to the effective date of 31.1.1990. Mr. Srivastava vide letter dated 11.12.1989 submitted request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement. While accepting the claim of the appellant therein i.e. Sh. J.N. Srivastava as regards his right to withdraw the request for voluntary retirement prior to the effective date inspite of the authorities concerned having already informed him regarding acceptance of the same, it was held as follows:-

It is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached, the employee has locus poenitentiae to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. The said view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in case of Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr,

In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, it cannot be said that the appellant had no locus standi to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement before 31.1.1990.

The ratio of the judgment in J.N. Srivastava''s case (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The request seeking premature retirement submitted by the petitioner along with three months notice was to be effective w.e.f. 31.5.2011. Such request stood accepted vide order dated 3.3.2011 (Annexure P-2) and in which also it was clearly recited that the petitioner would be retired from govt. service w.e.f. 31.5.2011. It is prior to such effective date i.e. 31.5.2011 that the petitioner had admittedly submitted a representation dated 24.5.2011 (Annexure P-3) opting to withdraw his request for premature retirement from service. It was within the rights of the petitioner to do so. Rejection of such request in the light of the impugned orders dated 31.5.2011 and 31.7.2012 (Annexures P-4 and P-6 respectively) cannot sustain.

At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that even if the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service, yet he cannot be granted the benefit of arrears of salary for the period in question on the principle of "No work no pay". Even such submission is without merit. The petitioner was always willing to work. Prior to the effective date of retirement i.e. 31.5.2011 he had submitted a written representation on 24.5.2011 withdrawing his request seeking premature retirement. No fault can be attributed to the petitioner under such circumstances. Identical contention that had been raised by the Union of India even in the case of J.N. Srivastava (supra) had been negated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 31.5.2011 (Annexure P-4) and 31.7.2012 (Annexure P-6) are set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits including continuity in service as also arrears of salary for the period in question.

Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.