IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21997 of 2008 Between: Challapalli Venkata Siva Rama Krishna S/o.Subrahmanyam R/o. Flat No.9, Madhuri Apartments, Near Shirdi Sai Temple, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam - 530 013. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of India, Corporate Centre, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai - 400 023, represented by its Chairman. 2 Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095. 3 Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Balajinagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam - 530 003. 4 Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Kambala Cheruvu, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District - 533 105. 5 The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, more particularly the one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not giving effect to the petitioner's revocation letter dated 20.12.2007 revoking the earlier application dated 30.8.2007 seeking voluntary retirement though it is very much within time and in not continuing the services in the Respondents- Bank, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, mala fide and against the principles of natural justice and to consequently direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner services as Dy. Manager, MMG-II, in the Respondents-Bank with all attendant benefits such as continuation of service, increments, promotions, back wages etc., and to pass such other further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SARVA BHOUMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioner joined the respondents bank in the year 1971 as a Cashier and reached the position of Deputy Manager. While working as Deputy Manager in Rajahmundry Branch of the respondents Bank, he submitted an application on 30.8.2007 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 31.8.2007. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Rajahmundry, transferred the petitioner on 31.8.2007 to Sriharipuram Branch, State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam-5th respondent. He was on leave as on the date of submitting his application seeking voluntary retirement. Subsequently, he did not attend the office. He persuaded his application seeking for voluntary retirement. Some correspondence went on between him and the respondents Bank. The petitioner was asked to appear for exit interview on 16.10.2007. He attended the exit interview and requested the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office-3rd respondent to permit him to retire from service with effect from 31.8.2007 and to dispense with customary counselling, if any, and recover three months’ salary in lieu of three months’ notice. The respondent Bank contended that the application filed by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement came to be accepted on 8.11.2007. The petitioner was asked to submit his pension proposal form containing 6 pages vide letter dated 27.11.2007. The petitioner sent a fax message to the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Rajahmundry-4th respondent withdrawing his application seeking voluntary retirement. The Assistant General Manager informed him that his application for voluntary retirement had been accepted with effect from 31.8.2007. The petitioner submitted representations to the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office-3rd respondent withdrawing his application seeking voluntary retirement. There being no fruitful result of his representations, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the action of the respondents in not permitting him to withdraw the application dated 30.8.2007 seeking voluntary retirement. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 14.10.2008 and an interim direction also came to be issued to continue the petitioner in service as Deputy Manager, MMG-II, if he is serving the respondents Bank as such as on that date vide WPMP No.28646 of 2008. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter- affidavit. They also moved WVMP No.4206 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order granted on 14.10.2008 in WPMP No. 28646 of 2008. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the application submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement had been accepted on 8.11.2007 by the competent authority and he was informed to submit the pension papers on 27.11.2007 itself, followed by another letter dated 19.12.2007. Paragraph Nos.6 & 7 of the counter-affidavit need to be noted and they read as hereunder: “It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement has been accepted on 8.11.2007 itself by the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India with effect from 31.8.2007 as a special case and he was communicated to submit pension papers on 27.11.2007 itself and followed by another letter dated 19.12.2007. In fact the petitioner wrote number of letters to the various authorities about his non-acceptance of voluntary resignation with retrospective effect from 31.8.2007 and the copies of the letters are enclosed herewith for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. As such it is submitted that his fax message on 20.12.2007 for revocation of the voluntary retirement could not be accepted by the bank and the same was communicated to the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner wrote a letter dated 20.12.2007 etc., but the same has been replied to the petitioners stating that the voluntary retirement has already been accepted and hence it cannot be revoked as the application for revocation reached the bank after acceptance. With regard to the allegations made in para 6 of the writ affidavit, it is submitted that no authority has passed any orders accepting the voluntary retirement has been accepted on 8.11.2007 by the competent authority. The other contention that it is a settled legal proposition that a proposal of voluntary retirement can be revoked at any time before such retirement actually takes effect is misconceived. It is a settled law that voluntary retirement will take effect from the date of acceptance/approval by the Competent Authority and the communication of it is not mandatory. This law is reiterated in North Zone Cultural Centre and Anr. Vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar reported in AIR 2003 SC 2719 and in Adithyanath Benarjee vs., State Bank of India reported in 2006-LLJ-2-ptpage 74. It is submitted the petitioner himself has given date of voluntary retirement as 31.8.2007, as such question of withdrawal does not arise. More over the voluntary retirement is accepted prior to withdrawal. More over voluntary retirement was accepted before withdrawal dated 20.12.2007 itself. The petitioner himself acting on his application for voluntary retirement did not attend for duty from 1.9.2007 as per the date specified him. As such he is estopped form contending contra, he himself waived all the requirements of rules. The bank has communicated the acceptance of the voluntary retirement and requested the petitioner to submit pension papers prior to 20.12.2007 itself. In fact the Rule 19 (1) of SBI Officers Service Rules also do not contemplate any communication of such approval to the employee concerned and in the petitioner’s case, the petitioner himself has given the date on 31.8.2007 and the same has been accepted which itself sufficient in law and the resignation will be effective form its acceptance on 8.11.2007. In fact the petitioner himself waived the procedure to be followed under the Regulation 19(1) of the SBI Officers Service Rules and submitted the application for the provident fund and gratuity papers on 15.11.2007 itself and the petitioner has not attending the duties since 1.9.2007 onwards. As such the contention that the respondents are bound to act upon such revocation and to continue him service is in correct. The allegation that respondents 2 to 4 have continuously shown a partisan attitude against the petitioner in which they malafide stated that the petitioner’s proposal for voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 31.8.2007 is incorrect. The said date was fixed by the petitioner himself voluntary and sought an acceptance of voluntary retirement from retrospective date on his own volition.” When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that acceptance of the respondents Bank on the application filed by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has not been communicated to him and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to withdrawn the same. He would further contend that as on 20.12.2008, the petitioner was not communicated with regard to acceptance of the voluntary retirement application submitted by him. Learned counsel laid much emphasis on the letter dated 31.8.2007, wherein it has been stated that unless and until approval of competent authority is communicated, the petitioner continues to be in bank service and report for duty as usual. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bank of India and others vs., OP Swarnakar and others[1] and National Textile Corporation (MP) Ltd vs MR Jhadav[2]. In the first cited decision, the Supreme Court held that the proposal of the employee when accepted by the bank would constitute a promise within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act. Only then the promise becomes an enforceable contract. In the second cited decision, the Supreme Court held that acceptance or otherwise of the request of the employee seeking retirement is required to be communicated in writing to him. Learned counsel for the respondents Bank submits that the application submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement was accepted by the competent authority on 8.11.2007 and the same was communicated to him and pursuant to the communication, he submitted application for gratuity on 15.11.2007 and therefore, the question of permitting the petitioner to withdraw the application filed by him seeking voluntary retirement does not arise. In a way, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the competent authority accepted the voluntary retirement application submitted by the petitioner and permitted him to retire with effect from 31.8.2007. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in North Zone Cultural Centre and another vs., Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar[3] wherein it has been held that proof of acceptance becomes effective on acceptance even if the acceptance is not communicated to the employee. I have gone through the material placed on record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted application seeking for retirement with effect from 31.8.2007. He insisted the authorities to permit him to retire from service with effect from 31.8.2007. The respondent authorities relaxed the rule and permitted him to retire from service with effect from 31.8.2007. It is explicit from the application submitted by the petitioner that sought permission from the competent authority to retire from service on 31.8.2007. For better appreciation, I may refer to the application submitted by the petitioner, which reads as hereunder: “I have applied for voluntary retirement of service under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. In case the bank accedes to my request, I request you to please arrange to refund the balance standing to my credit in the above fund to me along with interest thereon as per the SBI Employees Provident Fund Rules.” It is also trite to refer text of the letter addressed by the petitioner after attending the exit interview, which reads as hereunder: “I have applied for ‘Voluntary Retirement’ with effect from 31.8.2007 vide my application dated 30.08.2007 and an ‘Exit Interview’ was held on 16.10.2007 at Z.O. The AGM, SBI, Rajahmundry has, vide his letter dated 30.10.2007, advised me to suggest a prospective date of retirement as retirement from retrospective effect cannot be considered viz., 31.08.2007. In this connection, I submit that my application dated 30.08.2007 for ‘VR’ with effect from 31.08.2007 is in conformity of the Rule 19 (1) of the SBI Officers Service Rules: “An officer who has completed 20 years’ service or 20 years’ pensionable service, as the case may be, may be permitted to retire from the bank’s service, subject to his giving three months’ notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof”. Rule 20 of the SBI (Supervising Staff) Service Rules: “An employee who has completed 25 years’ pensionable service may be permitted to retire from the bank’s service, subject to his giving three moths’ notice or pay in lieu thereof” As such, I feel no necessity arises to furnish ‘prospective date of retirement” and request you expedite “V.R.Order” and terminal dues as requested by me vide my letters dated 1.9.2007, 29.9.2007, 16.10.2007 & 24.10.2007. I regret for the inconvenience, if any, caused to the bank in this regard.” After attending the exit interview, the petitioner was made known that the respondents considered his request. Even he authorized the respondents bank to recover three months’ salary in lieu of three months’ notice. When the respondent bank requested the petitioner to give a prospective date of retirement, he insisted the authorities to retire him from service with effect from 31.8.2007. The respondent bank considered the request and permitted him to retire from 31.8.2007. The material brought on record shows that the request of the petitioner was considered and he was permitted to retire with effect from 31.8.2007 even much earlier to his letter dated 20-12-2007 where under he sought withdrawal of the representation submitted by him seeking voluntary retirement. When once the respondent bank has accepted the representation and permitted him to retire from service with effect from 31.8.2007, it is not within the competency of the petitioner to withdraw the representation. The respondents are justified in retiring the petitioner with effect from 31.8.2007. I do not see any flaw in the order passed by the respondents retiring the petitioner with effect from 31.8.2007 warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________ 25-02-2009 rkk [1] (2003) 2 SCC 721 [2] 2008-TLPRE-0-727, 2008(TLS)46137 [3] (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 455