http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRAMOD KUMAR BHATIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted  . We  have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  division Bench  of the  Delhi High  court,  made  on 1.11.1996 in C.W. No. 2086/95.      The admitted  position is  that the  respondent,  while working  in  the  appellant  corporation,  had  applied  for voluntary retirement,  pursuant to  the scheme framed by the Corporation to relieve the surplus staff.      Initially, by  proceedings dated December 20, 1994, the Corporation  accepted   his  resignation   subject  to   the clearance of  the outstanding dues. The acceptance was to be given effect  from December 31,1994. By letter dated January 6, 1995,  he  requested  for  deduction  of  a  sum  of  Rs. 37,521.20 out  of the  outstanding dues.  He also  requested thus:      "I once  again request you that the      formal relieving order relieving me      for  me   immediately.  My  service      period  for   which  ex-gratia   is      payable be  informed to  me and  my      dues be paid immediately."      Based thereon, it is contended by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel  for the  appellant, that  acceptance of  the voluntary retirement of the respondent was a conditional one He himself  understood that  unless he  is relieved  of  the duties after  payment of  outstanding  dues,  the  voluntary retirement does  not become  effective.  In  the  meanwhile, realising  the   mistake  committed  by  the  appellant  for effecting the  voluntary retirement  scheme which  does  not apply to  the Corporation  since there  is no surplus staff, the appellant  withdrew the   scheme.  Therefore, there  was neither the  scheme  nor  a  concluded  order  of  voluntary retirement of  the respondent relieving him from the duties. The High  Court, therefore, is not right in holding that the order dated  December 20,1994  created vested  right in  the respondent and  the same  cannot be  divested by  subsequent orders.      Initially, Mr.  A.K. Sikri  appeared on  behalf of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

respondent and  argued the matter. Before the order could be dictated, the  respondent himself appeared and said that his counsel may be relieved and he may be permitted him to argue the matter.  Accordingly, we  permitted  him  to  argue  the matter. He stated that  he was relieved from the duty on the basis of  an endorsement  made on  the letter dated December 20,1994 and  what he  meant  by  writing  the  letter  dated January 6,1995  was  to seek a certificate for relieving him from the  duty. The  acceptance of  the voluntary retirement having become  effective from  December   31,  1994,  vested right had  been created  in him.  Therefore, the view of the High Court is in accordance with law.      Having  regard   to  the  respective  contentions,  the question that  arises  for  consideration  is:  whether  the respondent acquired  a vested  right after acceptance of the voluntary retirement by proceedings dated December 20, 1994? It is  seen that  the order  is a  conditional order in that until  the   dues  are  paid,  the  order  does  not  become effective.  The   respondent  himself   admitted  that   the outstanding dues  could be adjusted from the  amount payable to him.  Admittedly, no  such adjustment has been made. He , therefore, rightly  understood that unless he is relieved of the duties of the post, after the payment of the outstanding dues, the  order accepting his voluntary retirement does not become effective.      It is  now  settled  legal  position  that  unless  the employee is  relieved of  the duty,  after acceptance of the offer  of   voluntary  retirement   or  resignation,   jural relationship of  the employee and the employer does not come to  an   end.  since   the  order  accepting  the  voluntary retirement was  a conditional  one, the  conditions ought to have been  complied with.  Before the  conditions  could  be complied  with,   the   appellant   withdrew   the   scheme. consequently, the  order accepting  voluntary retirement did not become  effective. Thereby  no  vested  right  has  been created  in  favour  of  the  respondent.  The  High  court, therefore, was  not right in holding that the respondent has acquired a vested right and, therefore, the appellant has no right to withdraw the scheme subsequently.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High  Court   stands  reversed.  The  writ  petition  stands dismissed. No costs.