9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 601X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 years of service, he expressed his desire to retire from the services with effect from 1.8.1997 in terms of Sub-rule 2A of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum- Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 ('the Rules', for short) by a notice dated 30.4.1997 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, which reads as under : To The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Dispur, Guwahati-6 Sub: VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT FROM ALL INDIA SERVICES. Ref : Under Sub-Rule (2A) of Rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules 1958. Sir, I have the honour to inform you that on personal grounds I would like to quit the Indian Police Service, on voluntary retirement, to which I was recruited on the basis of the examination held in 1974 and allotted to the Joint Cadre of Assam and Meghalaya, with 1975 as the year of allotment. Whereas, I will be completing 22 years of service as on the 16th July, 1997; I intend to voluntarily retire from service with effect from the 1st August, 1997 afternoon. Meanwhile, I would like to request you to kindly issue necessary directions so that my pension papers are processed and finalized as per existing rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udice to the ongoing Disciplinary proceedings against him. Questioning the legality of the said communication, a writ petition was filed by the appellant before the Gauhati High Court. A Division Bench of the said High Court dismissed the said writ petition opining that the request of the appellant for voluntary retirement being accepted by the Joint Cadre Authority and a notification having been given effect thereto, no irregularity or illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents. The appellant is, thus, before us. The appellant, who appeared in person, has raised the following contentions in support of this appeal : (i) In terms of the proviso appended to Rule 16 (2A), the State of Assam could not have accepted the offer of voluntary retirement; (ii) 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; (iii) The respondents being public authorities, were bound to follow the Rules laid down by the Central Government which alone could have applied i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from service on the date on which he completes 20 years of qualifying service or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. Provided that a notice of retirement given by a member of the service shall require acceptance by the State Government if the date of retirement on the expiry of the period of notice would be earlier than the date on which the member of the service could have retired from service under sub-rule (2) The said Rule, however, was amended by a notification dated 1.7.1988 in the following terms : In rule 16 of the All India Services (Death-cum- Retirement-Benefits) Rules, 1958 (i) in the proviso to sub-rule (2), for the words State Government concerned , the words Central Government shall be substituted; (ii) in the first proviso to sub-rule (2A), for the words State Government concerned , the words Central Government shall be substituted. In view of the said amendment, thus, an offer of retirement made by a member of service requires acceptance by the Central Government and not by the State Government. The materials on records, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly point out that the authorities proceeded on the basis of the Rules ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority, [See Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 124) and State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 Supp(1) SCC 222)]. The expression approval presupposes an existing order. Acceptance means communicated acceptance. A distinction exists between the expressions approval and acceptance . Whereas in the latter, an application of mind on the part of the competent authority is sine qua non, approval of an order only envisages statutory entitlement. Approval of an order is required as directed by the statute. It can be given a retrospective effect. Even valid contract comes into being only after the offer is accepted and communicated. Where services of an employee are dispensed with, the order takes effect from the date when it is communicated and not from the date of passing of the order. {See State of Punjab vs. Amar Singh Harika [AIR (1966) SC 1313].} We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that under certain circumstances, the expression, approval would mean to accept as good or sufficient for the purpose of intent. Ratification is noun, of the verb ratify . It means the act of ratifying, confirmation, and sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. This Court therein was concerned with a contention raised by the appellant that the authorities could not have withheld the permission sought for by him to retire voluntarily. In that case the appellant sent his letter on 24th December, 1980 seeking voluntary retirement from service, which was stated to have been accepted by an order dated 20th January, 1981 with effect from 31st March, 1981. The appellant withdrew his offer seeking voluntary retirement by a letter dated 31st January, 1981. This Court held that he was entitled to do so and there was no valid reason to withhold the permission of the respondents stating : We hold, therefore, that there was no valid reason for withholding the permission by the respondent. We hold further that there has been compliance with the guidelines because the appellant has indicated that there was a change in the circumstances, namely, the persistent and personal requests from the staff members and relations which changed his attitude towards conti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in terms of the said Rules, the rejection of offer to retire voluntarily was to be communicated within the notice period. In view of the aforementioned provisions, the Court preferred to follow Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam [(1977) 4 SCC 441] and B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat [(1978) 2 SCC 202] wherein it was held that if no order of refusal has been passed within the notice period, the voluntary retirement would take effect automatically. We are, however, not concerned with any of the aforementioned category of cases. In fact it is a reverse situation. The proviso appended to Sub-rule (2A) of Rule 16 mandates acceptance by the Central Government. It although does not specify a date for communicating such acceptance but ordinarily such acceptance should be within the period of notice so as to make cessation of contract of employment complete. We may observe that an appropriate order should be passed within a reasonable period. Normally, three months notice is required to be given as the said period is considered to be reasonable and it is expected that a decision would be taken within the said period. But the rule is not an inflexible one. It would depend up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was complied with. From the proceeding sheet dated 5.8.2003, it appears that a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition recording : Learned counsel for the petitioner states that pension papers would be submitted within 15 days. Learned counsel for the respondents state after proper verification retiral benefits would be paid to the petitioner within one month thereof. We, direct that the said amount shall be paid with 6 per cent simple interest from the date of acceptance of voluntary retirement. However, on an application filed for restoration of the said order the matter was restored. Yet again a Three Judge Bench of this Court, albeit without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, noted that the Appellant would submit his pension papers within 15 days from the said date and the State of Assam was directed to pay the terminal benefits with simple interest at the rate of 6% with effect from the date on which the Second Respondent alleged that he had retired. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, the Appellant submitted his pension papers. He is said to have made certain corrections as regards the bank account in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
