Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M.S. Nageswara Rao And Others vs Secretary To Govt. Of A.P., Irrigation ... on 14 July, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(4)ALD443, 1999(4)ALT634
ORDER
M.S. Liberhan, CJ
1. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Voluntary retirement scheme was floated in which one of the terms is that an employee of the A.P. State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited (for short "the Corporation") can seek voluntary retirement which will be granted subject to the release of funds by the State Government to the Corporation. Pursuant to the said voluntary retirement scheme the appellants sought retirement in October, 1998 which was accepted and in respect of the 1st appellant herein it was accepted on 3-11-1998 subject to the release of funds and pending disciplinary proceedings, if any. The appellants accepted the said orders. Since funds were not released the appellants are continued to be in service. It is on 2-3-1999 that the 1st appellant reconsidered his decision and sought to withdraw the voluntary retirement which has been declined. Likewise, the other appellants also sought to withdraw the voluntary retirement and their requests have also been declined.
2. The appellants challenged the orders declining their withdrawals in the writ petition which was dismissed inter alia holding that the Board's orders of acceptance of voluntary retirement cannot be rendered nullity on the ground that dues were not paid at the time of acceptance of the voluntary retirement and in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.243 of 1999, dated 24-2-1999.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that since in the acceptance of voluntary retirement, conditions of release of funds and pendency of the disciplinary proceedings have been incorporated there is no express acceptance of the offer and, consequently, the appellants are at liberty to withdraw their offer. In order to buttress his submission he relied on Badri Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram, .
4. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that if conditions are imposed in the acceptance of the offer it becomes a counter-offer and it is for the other party to accept the counter-offer or not. That is not the case herein. The scheme itself provides that the voluntary retirement will be accepted subject to the release of funds and the persons seeking voluntary retirement will be relieved on payment of the retiral benefits provided under the scheme after the funds are released. Once the voluntary retirement has been accepted and the appellants by their own act and conduct ratified the same upto 2-3-1999 the appellants cannot be permitted to reprobate and resile from their offer. Since funds have not been released the appellants have not yet been relieved from service. They have not suffered any prejudice either. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the State is directed to release the funds within two months to the Corporation. On receipt of funds from the Government the retiral benefits be given to the appellants and in terms of the offer for voluntary retirement the Corporation will be at liberty to relieve the appellants from service. So far the condition of pending of disciplinary proceedings is concerned the same is otiose as it is accepted at the Bar that there is no disciplinary proceedings pending against the appellants.
5. In view of the observations made above we find no force in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.