Makhan Lal Raina vs J & K SRTC and Others

The petitioner sought voluntary retirement by submitting an application on 12.2.1990. Domestic circumstances were pointed out as the

background for making this prayer. The request made by him in this regard, is not on the file but is available on the file maintained by the

respondents. For facility of reference, this is being reproduced below :

With due respect I beg to say that due to my domestic circumstances, I am not in a position to serve any more now. It is as such requested that I

may very kindly be retired voluntarily as under Rule 230 of CSR Vol. I and oblige w.e.f. 1.4.90

The case of the petitioner appears to have been examined at various levels. Ultimately, an order was passed on 7.1.1991, whereby sanction

was accorded to the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. This was to be made effective w.e.f. 31.12.1990. This order is signed by the Managing

Director of the Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application on 8101991. He submits that he be permitted to withdraw the

option given by him on 12.2.1990. The application given by him is also being reproduced below :

Subject: Cancellation of Voluntary Retirement application"".

Sir,

Respectfully, I submit the following for favour of your perusal and further action please:

1) That last year during the month of April 19901 submitted an application for my voluntary retirement.

2) That due to the unavoidable circumstances and turmoil conditions in the valley, I left/ proceeded to Jammu on 9.4.1990 and submitted

declaration form of my service cadre in the Regional Direction Office SRTC Jammu forgetting my monthly salary as was being paid to other Govt.

employees.

3) That under the circumstances as explained, I had not alternative left but to inform the concerned department for treating my voluntary retirement

application as cancelled.

4) That even a telegram during the month of December (6.12.1990) on the subject matter was sent from Jammu:

Now recently, I heard that orders for retirement with effect from 31.12.1990 have been issued on 7.1.1991, though I informed the department for

treating my application on the subject matter as cancelled from time to time, even through a telegram dated 6.12.1990.

In view of the circumstances, as explained above, I would request your good self to kindly treat my voluntary application as cancelled and fresh

orders issued accordingly to avoid any further hardships to me during these hard and abnormal times.

With prayers Sd/

Yours faithfully Makhan Lal

This prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the General Manager of the Corporation. The communication is reproduced below :

Sh. Makhan Lal driver no. 1914 has approached this office with an application where under he has requested for withdrawal of his voluntary

retirement, which was accepted by the worthy Managing Director, JKSRTC, vide order no. JKSRTC/Pcbii/ 1798 dated 7.1. 1991 with effect

from 31.12.1990 and has already been given effect.

In this connection, as per rules there is no scope for reconsideration of revocation of these orders as is laid down under SRO 230 of J and K

SRTC. Your are further requested to prepare the pension case of the above noted retiree and forward to the account office AG's office Jammu

under an intimation to this office please.

Yours faithfully Sd/

General Manager (Adm.) JKSRTC, Srinagar

It is the acceptance of the prayer made on 12.2.1990 and later refusal on the part of the respondents to reconsider the prayer made on

8.10.1990 and the communication dated 7.1.1992 which are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits :

i) That the prayer for voluntary retirement was conditional. It was specifically mentioned that prayer should be accepted by 1.4.1990. As this was

not done and as the petitioner had continued to work (receiving the migrant salary) therefore, the respondents were not within their rights to accept

his prayer at a belated stage.

ii) In addition to this, it is stated that the order said to have been passed by the Managing Director, has been passed with retrospective effect. This,

accordingly to the petitioner could not be done.

iii) Again, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawal has been rejected on the ground that there is not provision for permitting a

person to seek withdrawal.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the single argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner

that his client's prayer seeking voluntary retirement was conditional i.e. that his prayer should be accepted by 1.4.1990 and this having not been

done, the application submitted by him should be deemed to have exhausted and no action could be taken thereon is enough to grant him relief in

this petition. What is sought to be urged is that if the petitioner was to be voluntarily retired then that should have been done by 1.4.1990. Having

not done so, the respondents cannot on a later date accept his letter of voluntary retirement. It is said the passing of this order would be beyond

the prayer made by the petitioner.

There is merit in this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The offer of voluntary retirement should have been accepted in the manner

prayed for by the petitioner. He sought retirement w.e.f. 1.4.1990. This was not done. After that the petitioner had become a migrant at Jammu.

The relationship of master and servant continued between the corporation and the petitioner. The offer made by the petitioner exhausted on

1.4.1990 and there survived nothing for further action. As pointed out above, this single factor is good enough for quashing of the order of

petitioner's voluntary retirement.

Independently of the above, it be seen that the perusal of departmental file indicates that the file was put up before the Managing Director. A

draft note was prepared. He has simply appended his signatures. The question as to whether in the above circumstances the petitioner's prayer that

he be voluntarily retired by 1.4.1990 was ever brought to the notice of the Managing Director or not is not apparent. There appears to be no

application of mind. Therefore, the argument which is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that was total lack of application of mind on

the part of the Managing Director also deserves to be taken note of. This petition is allowed. The letter of acceptance shall not be given effect to.

Disposed of as such.