9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (8) TMI 601 - SC - Indian LawsWhether in terms of the proviso appended to Rule 16 (2A), the State of Assam could not have accepted the offer of voluntary retirement? Whether the offer of the appellant to retire voluntarily could have been accepted only prior to 1.8.1997 in terms of the circulars issued by the Central Government, as the employee has a right to withdraw the offer even after acceptance by the State Government? Whether the respondents being public authorities, were bound to follow the Rules laid down by the Central Government which alone could have applied its mind to the request of the appellant and not the State of Assam?
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the State of Assam accepting the appellant's offer of voluntary retirement. 2. Requirement for the acceptance of voluntary retirement before the specified date. 3. Authority of the Central Government versus the State Government in accepting voluntary retirement. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Legality of the State of Assam Accepting the Appellant's Offer of Voluntary Retirement The appellant, a member of the Indian Police Service, sought voluntary retirement under Sub-rule 2A of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. The State of Assam forwarded his request to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Joint Cadre Authority approved it without prejudice to ongoing disciplinary proceedings. However, the acceptance was communicated by the State of Assam, not the Central Government. The Supreme Court held that, according to the amended Rule 16(2A), only the Central Government could accept such an offer, especially since the appellant was under suspension. The acceptance by the State of Assam was deemed non-est in law, as the competent authority was the Central Government. Issue 2: Requirement for Acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Before the Specified Date The appellant contended that his offer to retire voluntarily should have been accepted before 1.8.1997, as per the Central Government's circulars, allowing him the right to withdraw his offer even after acceptance by the State Government. The Court observed that while the appellant's offer was accepted by the Joint Cadre Authority and subsequently approved by the Central Government, the acceptance was not communicated to the appellant directly. The Court noted that the acceptance should ideally occur within the notice period to complete the cessation of the employment contract. However, the appellant withdrew his offer only in 1999, much after the acceptance and issuance of a notification, rendering the withdrawal invalid. Issue 3: Authority of the Central Government Versus the State Government in Accepting Voluntary Retirement The Court clarified that after the amendment of Rule 16(2A) in 1988, the Central Government was the sole competent authority to accept offers of voluntary retirement from All India Services members. The State Government's role was limited to forwarding the request. The Joint Cadre Authority's approval was only advisory, and the Central Government's acceptance was mandatory. The Court emphasized that the competent authority must apply its mind and pass an appropriate order, which was not delegated to the Joint Cadre Authority or the State of Assam. The Court concluded that the Central Government's approval of the Joint Cadre Authority's decision did not amount to a valid acceptance as required by law. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent that the appellant's voluntary retirement should have been accepted by the Central Government and communicated to him. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to direct that: 1. The appellant be paid all his pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1st August 1997. 2. The appellant be paid his salary for the period from 1st August 1997 to 8th September 1997. 3. The second respondent bear the appellant's costs, quantified at Rs. 50,000. The appeal was allowed on these terms.
|
