Delhi High Court
Narender Kumar Parwanda vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 July, 2006
Author: Manju Goel
Bench: Manju Goel
JUDGMENT Manju Goel, J.
1. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus quashing the letters dated 25.9.1995 and 15.1.1996 and to declare that the petitioner be deemed to have retired from service voluntarily on medical grounds w.e.f. 25.9.1995 and entitled to invalid pension and other consequential benefits. The petitioner joined respondent No. 2 in 1973 as a Probation Officer. In 1993 he was working as Sub-Manager in the Hauz Khas Branch of respondent No. 2. The petitioner submitted a letter dated 10.4.1993 informing respondent No. 2 that he had suffered multiple fracture on his right femur bone due to which his right lower limb had shortened by one inch and, as such, his mobility had been seriously affected making it difficult for him to discharge his duties and, therefore, he was tendering his resignation from the service of respondent No. 2. There was acknowledgment of this letter vide a letter dated 20.4.1993 saying that the decision to accept the resignation or otherwise shall be communicated to the petitioner. Admittedly, no decision was ever tendered to the petitioner till 6.1.1994 when the petitioner sent a letter saying that since the resignation had not so far been accepted, he wanted to retire on medical grounds, as mentioned in his letter dated 10.4.1993, and that he was opting for the pension scheme which was likely to come into effect shortly with retrospective effect. The petitioner did not hear from respondent No. 2 of any steps being taken or order being passed on the letter dated 6.1.1994. The petitioner again wrote on 10.6.1994 requesting respondent No. 2 to accept his option for retirement on medical grounds and to grant invalid pension. On 31.8.1994 the respondent served the petitioner with a letter that since he was not attending to his duties, his absence was being treated as unauthorized absence and that he was advised to report for duty. On 9.9.1994 the petitioner again represented to respondent No. 2 to consider his case sympathetically and to inform him about the adoption of pension regulations etc. On 8.11.1994 he was informed that he was not entitled to invalid pension as the pension regulations had not yet been implemented and that if he was seeking retirement on medical grounds, he could submit his specific request for their consideration. By a letter dated 10.4.1995 the petitioner informed respondent No. 2 that his request for invalid pension may be treated as request for retirement on medical grounds for the present and that after the pension regulations come into force, he may be granted invalid pension. It was only on 25.9.1995 that respondent No. 2 for the first time in a letter addressed to the petitioner wrote as under:
We note that your liabilities at our Hauz Khas Branch and IN a Colony Branch still remain outstanding though you ceased to be an employee of the Bank w.e.f. 10.7.1993 because of your resignation.
2. As such, there was no communication of the resignation being accepted excepting saying that he is ceased to be an employee on account of his resignation. By another letter dated 15.1.1996 the petitioner was informed that as the pension regulations have come into force only on 29.9.2005 and since the competent authority had not passed any orders permitting the petitioner to retire voluntarily under pension regulations, the Bank would not be able to cover him under the pension scheme. Even in the letter dated 15.1.1996 respondent No. 2 did not take the stand that the petitioner stood resigned w.e.f. 10.7.1993.
3. It is not disputed by the respondent that before the resignation was actually accepted the petitioner could withdraw the resignation. What, however is said is that by virtue of the regulations the petitioner's resignation should be deemed to have been accepted on the expiry of the three months notice period. Regulation 20(2) is being referred to for this purpose, which says as under:
An officer shall not leave or discontinue his service in the Bank without first giving a notice in writing of his intention to leave or discontinue the service or resign. The period of notice required shall be three months and shall be submitted to the Competent Authority as prescribed in these Regulations. Provided that the Competent Authority may reduce the period of three months or remit the requirement of notice.
4. It is not possible to read in this regulation a clause that in case three months period has lapsed after submission of resignation, the resignation shall be deemed to have been accepted.
5. The respondent says that the petitioner having resigned was not entitled to pension or invalid pension by virtue of Regulation No. 22 of the Bank. These pleas have no force since the petitioner's resignation was never accepted and there is no rule which says that at the end of three months from the date of resignation, the resignation stands automatically accepted. Even on facts it is certainly not so as respondent No. 2 has been continuously treating the petitioner to have been in the employment and even asking him to join duty. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner's resignation has not taken effect.
6. The next question is whether the petitioner can be allowed to retire from service. Respondent No. 2 so far has not paid any attention to this demand of the petitioner and has neither accepted the request of voluntary resignation nor rejected his prayer. Nonetheless, the respondent is citing a judgment which says that after the notice period for voluntary retirement, the respondent should be treated to have voluntarily retired. The judgment relied upon is of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. S.K. Singhal 1999(2) L.L.N. 660 at page 864.
7. In view of the above situation, it is held that before the resignation was accepted the petitioner had withdrawn his resignation and, accordingly, the petitioner cannot be treated to have resigned from the service of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 is yet to decide upon the application for voluntary retirement and consequential benefits.
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed by holding that the petitioner has not resigned and that his application for voluntary retirement needs to be attended to. Respondent No. 2 shall consider his application for voluntary retirement within a period of 45 days hereof, according to rules, and grant him all consequential benefits. In case the petitioner is not satisfied, it will be open to him to challenge the order of respondent No. 2 in this regard. Respondent No. 2 will be at liberty to invite the petitioner to the office of Senior Manager (Law) at its Zonal Office at 6, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi for any clarification of details or facts from the petitioner.