Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)
Mahendrabhai vs State on 6 April, 2011 cites

Power Finance Corporation Ltd vs Pramod Kumar Bhatia on 17 March, 1997

15. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on a two-Judge Bench decision in Power Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia. That was a case where the letter of voluntary retirement was conditionally accepted subject to payment of dues and the employee wrote a further letter seeking adjustment thereof but before that was done, the scheme itself was withdrawn. There are again some observations made to the effect that there must be acceptance of request to retire and that it must be communicated. Neither Dinesh Chandra Sangma nor Shelat was referred to. In our opinion, the express provision in the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 5.32(B) in the case before us does not permit such a view to be taken. The said observations again run contrary to the decision in the two three-Judge Bench cases referred to above. Our comments on Baljit Singh apply equally to this case, so far as the observations are concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 143 - Full Document

B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978

I am of the view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio as propounded by the Apex Court in the case of B.J.Shelat (supra). It was held that a positive action by the appointing authority was required and it was open to the appointing authority to withhold permission indicating the same and communicating its intention to the government servant withholding permission for voluntary retirement and that no action can be taken once the government servant has effectively retired. The same would be the case over here. At this stage, learned AGP has tried to canvass that the Resolution does not just speak about acceptance of voluntary retirement but it also says that even if it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement, even in such cases, approval of the administrative department should be obtained in regard to Class-I and Class II officers and that of the Head of the Department in cases of Class-III and Class-IV Government servants. Learned AGP would contend that, therefore, it is subject to approval of the administrative department, and if it is subject to approval of the administrative department, then the voluntary retirement would not come into effect automatically on the expiry of the period of 90 days i.e. on the expiry of the notice period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 134 - P S Kailasam - Full Document

Himachal Pradesh Horticultural ... vs Suman Behari Sharma on 2 April, 1996

On the other hand H.P. Horticultural Produce Marketing & Processing Corpn. Ltd. vs. Suman Behari Sharma (1996) 4 SCC 584 belongs to the second category where the bye-laws were interpreted as not giving an option "to retire" but only provided a limited right to "seek" retirement thereby implying the need for a consent of the employer even if the period of the notice has elapsed. We shall refer to these two categories in some detail."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Dr. Baljit Singh vs State Of Haryana on 9 December, 1996

The two-Judge Bench of this Court in Baljit Singh case did not notice that there were two three-Judge Bench cases in Dinesh Chandra Sangma and Shelat taking the view under similar rules that a positive order was to be passed within the notice period withholding permission to retire and that the said order was also to be communicated to the employee during the said period. By stating that an order of acceptance of the notice was necessary and that the said acceptance must be communicated to the employee and till that was done the jural relationship continued and there was no automatic snapping thereof on the expiry of 3 months' period, the two-Judge Bench, in our view, has gone contrary to the two three-Judge Bench cases which were not brought to its notice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Reserve Bank Of India & Anr vs Cecil Dennis Solomon & Anr on 4 December, 2003

"10.......In the case of Reserve Bank of India v. Cecil Dennis Solomon (2004) 9 SCC 461, this Court has laid down that in service jurisprudence there is a difference between "voluntary retirement" and "resignation" as they convey different connotations. It has been held that voluntary retirement and resignation involve voluntary acts on the part of the employee to leave service and though both involve voluntary acts, they operate differently. One of the basic distinctions between the two is that in the case of resignation, it can be tendered at any time but in the case of voluntary retirement, it can only be sought for after rendering prescribed period of qualifying service. In the case of resignation, a prior permission is not mandatory while in the case of voluntary retirement, permission of the employer concerned is a requisite condition. Under Rule 16 of the 1958 Rules, an employee who seeks voluntary retirement has to give three months' notice to enable the employer to complete the designated mode of acceptance. (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 9, p. 133.) Lastly, in a given case, the appointing authority may refuse to waive the said notice period which shows that resignation may be unilateral whereas voluntary retirement is bilateral.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 113 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs State Of Assam & Ors on 5 October, 1977

18. In the case before us sub-rule (1) of Rule 5.32(B) contemplates a "notice to retire" and not a request seeking permission to retire. The further "request" contemplated by the sub-rule is only for seeking exemption from the 3 months' period. The proviso to sub-rule (2) makes a positive provision that "where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (1), the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. The case before us stands on a stronger footing than Dinesh Chandra Sangma case so far as the employee is concerned. As already stated Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II only deals with a situation of withholding or withdrawing pension to a person who has already retired."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 188 - P K Goswami - Full Document

Uco Bank And Ors vs Sanwar Mal on 11 March, 2004

A similar question came up before this Court in the case of UCO Bank v. Sanwar Mal [(2004) 4 SCC 412] in which this Court has inter alia held that in the case of "resignation", the relationship of employer and employee terminates on acceptance of resignation whereas in the case of "retirement", voluntary or on superannuation, the relationship continues for the purposes of payment of retiral benefits. In the case of retirement, there is a nexus between such retirement and retiral benefits...."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 133 - V N Khare - Full Document
1