AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—The petitioner P.K. Ganesan submitted his application seeking voluntary retirement on 30.11.2002 in response to voluntary
retirement scheme introduced by the respondent corporation requesting the respondent to accept his offer to go on voluntary retirement in view of
his family circumstances. Even before the petitioner''s offer to voluntarily retire was accepted by the respondent, the petitioner, through his letter
dated 10.03.2003 had withdrawn his application dated 30.11.2002. In the meanwhile, the second respondent in his letter dated 22.3.2003 stated
that the options for Voluntary Retirement received from the employees of the Corporation with other required details have been placed before the
Board for examination. The Board, after detailed discussions, have recommended only 4 staffs to go on Voluntary Retirement, including the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner was informed about the same. Immediately after receipt of that letter, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 24.3.2003 to
the first respondent herein with a copy to the second respondent informing that he had already withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement
on 10.3.2003 itself, even before the circular accepting the petitioner''s letter was served on 22.3.2003 and, therefore, the petitioner requested to
treat his application for voluntary retirement as withdrawn and further made request to permit the petitioner to continue in service. He was also
continuously working. Subsequently on 11.4.2003, the petitioner also met the first respondent in person and submitted that he had already
withdrawn his request to go on voluntary retirement from service.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has rightly sent a letter dated 10.3.2003 on the basis of G.O. No. 666 P
& AR Department dated 26.6.1981, which says that the offer of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn at any time before the final orders are
passed. Therefore, the stand of the respondent that the option to go on Voluntary Retirement was accepted, cannot be sustained as it goes against
G.O. No. 666 dated 26.6.1981. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after the receipt of the letter dated
16.02.2004, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and this Court was also pleased to pass an interim injunction restraining the respondent
from relieving the petitioner from his services as Assistant Field Conductor, Nelliyalam Tea Division, TANTEA, Nelliyalam, Nilgiris District.
The petitioner was working as Assistant Field Conductor. By virtue order passed by this Court on 20.02.2004, the petitioner is still continuing in
service with the respondents. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by G.O. No. 666,
dated 26.6.1981 and on that basis prayed for allowing the writ petition.
In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that still the petitioner is continuing in service. Even today the respondents have not
taken any further action.
Admittedly, the petitioner made his application dated 30.11.2002 seeking permission to leave the service of the respondents voluntarily in
response to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Even before the offer made by the petitioner by his letter dated 30.11.2002 came to be admitted
by the respondent, by another letter dated 10.03.2003, the petitioner withdrew his request to go on voluntary retirement. Therefore, the
respondents are not entitled to contend or take a stand that the petitioner''s letter has already been accepted. It is settled legal position that a
person who is making a request to go on voluntary retirement from service is always at liberty to withdraw his letter seeking a Voluntary
Retirement before the same is accepted by the competent authority.
In Vice Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. R. Varaprasad and Others, the Scheme of the Andhra Pradesh
State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited for VRS was under consideration. The Apex Court held that after the acceptance of VRS,
withdrawal of the option was not permissible, though it may be prior to actual relieving of the employee.
In Bank of India and Others Vs. O.P. Swaranakar etc., the Punjab National Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 was under
consideration. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court held that the employee could withdraw his option from the Scheme
before the was accepted.
In the present case, G.O. No. 666 dated 26.6.1981 stipulates that the offer to go on voluntary retirement can be withdrawn, at any time before
final orders are passed, by both the respondent as well as the petitioner. Therefore, the letter dated 10.03.2003 of the petitioner seeking
withdrawal of the letter of voluntary retirement from service has to be treated as the petitioner''s withdrawal and the same is legally supported by
the G.O. No. 666.
Hence this Court finds that the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is fair. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed by
quashing the order in Ref. No. 1783/2002E dated 23.04.2003 and the order dated 16.2.2004 in Proc. No. 180/2004E. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.