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

PETITIONER: SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PROJECT & DEVELOPMENT INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/04/2000

BENCH: S.S.Ahmad, R.C.Lahoti

JUDGMENT:

     S.   SAGHIR AHMAD, J.  Leave granted.  In pursuance of the scheme for voluntary retirement, the appellant submitted an   application   dated    18.10.1995   seeking   voluntary retirement.     The    offer    was    accepted    by    the respondent-management  by their letter dated 30.7.1997.   In the  letter,  it was, inter alia, mentioned as under :   "In response  to  Circular  No.   PD/PERS/IR/60  (11)/374  dated 5.9.1995  and No.  PD/PERS/IR/60 (111)/400 dated  12.10.1995 and  your  option  for vol.  retirement.  Under  the  scheme mentioned  in  the above circulars, Management has  accepted your   option  for  Vol.    Retirement.   The  release  memo alongwith detailed particulars will follow.  Under the above V.R.   Scheme there is a provision for retention of  quarter for a period of 5 (five) years for which you are required to enter  into  an agreement, as such please obtain the  format duly  typed on non- judicial stamp paper from the office  of S.P.O.  For completing the agreement paper, the name of your father and quarter/bungalow No.  is required, as such please give  the  above information in writing to us for the  above purpose.  The agreement paper may be returned duly signed by you  and your witness to the Sr.  Pers.  Officer.  It may be noted that you have to pay the charges of non-judicial paper and  demi  paper." Since it was specifically stated in  that letter  that  release memo along with  detailed  particulars will  follow,  the  appellant   continued  in  service  till 26.9.1997  when  he was relieved from the post in  question. In  the  meantime,  the appellant had  already  submitted  a letter  to  the respondent on 7.8.1997 (followed by  another letter  dated  24.9.1997)  withdrawing   the  letter   dated 18.10.1995 by which he had sought voluntary retirement.  But this   letter   was   not    given    effect   to   by   the respondent-management.   The  appellant  then filed  a  writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single Judge.   The  Writ  Appeal filed against that  judgment  was dismissed  by  the Division Bench of the High Court  by  the impugned  judgment.   The  High  Court did  not  accept  the contention  of  the appellant that he having  withdrawn  the letter of voluntary retirement should be allowed to continue in  service.  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 accepted 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

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

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 &  Anr. 1987  (Supp.) SCC 228;  J.N.  Srivastava vs.  Union of India &  Anr.  (1998) 9 SCC 559 and Power Finance Corporation Ltd. vs.   Pramod Kumar Bhatia (1997) 4 SCC 280, 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.