Chattisgarh High Court
Trigunanand Pandey vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited And ... on 2 January, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)MPHT86(CG)
ORDER Fakhruddin, J.
1. With consent heard finally.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition for setting aside the order (Annexure P-11), dated 2/3-12-2002 whereby his application for voluntary retirement has been accepted. The petitioner's contention is that his Voluntary retirement has been illegally accepted even without any formal/proper application made by him.
3. The respondent have filed return. The respondents in the return have made categorical statement that the petitioner was retired from the service on his own request. They have filed Annexures R-l showing that the petitioner himself applied for voluntary retirement. Annexure R-l is relevant and quoted below :--
"To, The Chief General Manager, South Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Gcvra Area, Through :-- Proper channel.
Subject:-- Application for Voluntary Retirement. Respected Sir, With due respect I wish to inform that I am working in Colony Power Supply & Maintenance (E & M) Department of Urja Nagar, Gcvra Area. I am not in a condition to perform my job any more because of my poor health. Therefore, I request to your honour thai kindly allow me to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the company. Thanking you, in anticipation of your early positive response. Yours sincerely, T.N. PANDEY Foreman-in-Chief E & M/Colony Power Supply, Urja Nagar, Gcvra Area."
4. After filing the above application, the petitioner again applied for Voluntary Retirement by an application which is at page 7 of the return. The application is reproduced below :--
"Application for Voluntary Retirement To, Chief General Manager, Seel Gevra Area.
Sir, I, T.N. Pandey son/wife of Shri K. Pandey hereby apply for voluntary retirement, I have understood the conditions laid down in the scheme which arc acceptable to me. Yours f'ailhfully, Signature/Left Thumb Impression Name: T.N. PANDEY Designation : KM. I/C Category/Grade: A-1 (SL4) Unit: E & M Scale: 6000-200-8400 CMPF No. A/337036 Identity Card No. 2145334"
5. It is submitted that the application was processed on 5-8-2002 and, the formalities were completed and accounts etc. prepared. It is on 3-12-2002 the petitioner was informed about his retirement as per Annexure P-11 and all this has been done at the request and the applications made by the petitioner himself. Shri Mishra submits that the respondents are ready to release the amount due to be paid.
6. Once the petitioner makes not only one but two applications mentioned hereinabove and the same have been processed and accepted and the petitioner made no grievance till it was accepted, the acceptance can not be said to be illegal. The contention that the voluntary retirement has been accepted even without any formal/proper application made by him docs not appear to be correct. He had made applications and they have been accepted. Here Section 115 of the Evidence Act is also relevant and quoted below:--
"115. Estoppel.-- When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing."
7. Here in the instant case, while filing the petition, the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that he has filed applications for voluntary retirement and he did not file the applications along with the petition and suppressed the true and correct facts. He ought to have disclosed the true and correct facts and it was his bounden duty specially when the petitioner seeks a writ invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. One who desires to involve extra-ordinary jurisdiction, is required to disclose the factual aspect.
8. In view of the submissions made by the parties and in view of the Annexure R-1, it can not he said that the Department acted illegally and the petitioner has been retired illegally or contrary to law.
9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, in the opinion of this Court, no case for any interference in the impugned order in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 is made out. The petition fails and is dismissed.