Parashu Ram vs State of U.P. and Others

Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 9.4.2003 by means of which the resignation of the Petitioner has been accepted.

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer in the year 1970 and continued to work on the said post. On 13.7.2002 while working as Lecturer, the Petitioner moved an application for voluntary retirement stating therein that on account of personal reasons, he would not be able to work after 30.6.2003. Committee of Management considered the resignation of the Petitioner and accepted the same and forwarded the same to the DIOS. The DIOS accepted the resignation on 9.4.3003. In the meantime, Government Order was issued on 4.2.2004. The Petitioner by virtue of that Government Order claimed that he should be made to retire at the age of 60 years as the age of retirement in the entire State has been enhanced by the aforesaid Government Order. The Petitioner was to continue upto the end of session by virtue of the Government Order extending the period of session.

Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that effective date given in the resignation was 30.6.2003 and before that date the Petitioner was entitled to withdraw the same at any point of time. It is also submitted that mere acceptance of resignation will not change the effective date and effective date will remain 30.6.2003. Submission is that withdrawal of the resignation of the Petitioner by means of application dated 14.5.2003 was within his domain and the same could not have been rejected or ignored. The question of withdrawal was proper and justified in the eye of law and acceptance of the same will not curtail the right of the Petitioner in any manner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India and Anr. (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1752 and Ram Bahal Nishad Vs. Director, Fisheries Department and Others,

Learned Counsel for the newly impleaded Respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that resignation of the Petitioner has been accepted on 9.4.2003, therefore, the application dated 14.5.2003 was not maintainable and even if the application was moved, then no right accrued in favour of the Petitioner to withdraw his resignation as the same had already been accepted.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Petitioner proceeded to submit his resignation on 13.7.2002 on account of personal reason that he would not be able to work after 30.6.2003. Before that resignation could become effective, the Petitioner moved an application on 14.5.2003 for withdrawal of the same. The application was not adhered to and prior to that application, the DIOS had accepted the resignation of the Petitioner on 9.4.2003. The benefit of session extension was available to the Petitioner by virtue of operation of the Government Order. The Petitioner was to continue upto the end of the session, therefore, it implies that the resignation submitted by the Petitioner was to become operative only after 30.6.2003. Mere acceptance of the resignation prior to the cut off date or the outer limit given by the Petitioner will not curtail the right of the Petitioner to withdraw his resignation at any given point of time. It was within the domain of the Petitioner to withdraw his resignation before the effective date i.e. 30.6.2003. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner upon the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha (supra). Relevant para-5 of the said judgment is as under:

From the facts stated above, it would be seen that though the option of voluntary retirement exercised by the Appellant by his letter dated 18.10.1995 was accreted by the Respondent-management by their letter dated 30.7.1997, the Appellant was not relieved from service and he was allowed to continue in service till 26.9.1997, which, for all practical purposes, would be the "effective date" as it was on this date that he was relieved from service. In the meantime, as pointed out above, the Appellant had already withdrawn the offer of voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 7.8.1997. The question which, therefore, arises in this appeal is whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdraw the said offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective. The question is squarely answered by the three decisions, namely, Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr, J.N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and Power Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, in which it was held that the resignation, in spite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the "effective date". That being so, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside with the direction that the Appellant shall be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

In view of the aforesaid proposition of law propounded by the Apex Court, I find that Petitioner was fully competent under law to withdraw his resignation before it became effective i.e. 30.6.2003.

In view of the aforesaid facts, writ petition is allowed and the order dated 9.4.2003 is hereby quashed and the Petitioner shall be entitled for the consequential benefits.