IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8333 of 2008 Between: P.L.N.Sarma S/o. P.L. Narasimha Rao. R/o. H.No. 59 Road No. 2, New Nagole, Hyd. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Indian Bank, rep. by its Boards of Directors, Head Office, 66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. 2 Indian Bank , rep. by its Chairmen and Managing Director, Head Office, 66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. 3 Indian Bank, rep. by its Chief Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Department, Head Office, 66, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent bank in not accepting petitioner's voluntary resignation application dt. 21.2.2007 submitted under Regulation 29 of India Bank (employees) Pension Regulation 1995 and also the consequently action of the respondent bank in rejecting the same by letter dt. 17.5.2007 and consequential initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner in C.S.No.27/2007 dt. 14.12.2007 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust contrary to the provisions of the Indian Bank (employees) Pension Regulation 1995 and Violative of Art. 14 an d21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently suspend the Articles of Charge in C.S.No.27/2007 dt. 14.12.2007 issued by the respondent bank by directing the respondent bank to forthwith accept the voluntary retirement application dt. 21.2.2007 and relieve the petitioner from duty with all consequential beneﬁts and award exemplary costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.W.B.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.8333 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner is working as a Senior Manager in Indian Bank. He submitted an application on 21.02.2007 under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations 1995, with a prayer to permit him to retire voluntarily. His grievance is that respondents have not accepted the same, taking into account the factors, which are not germane to the issue. Respondents ﬁled counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated that the petitioner had incorporated certain conditions in his application, and in that view of the matter, the application has been rejected. Heard Smt. N.Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned senior counsel for the respondents. Petitioner had exercised his option to avail the beneﬁt of voluntary retirement scheme, introduced by the respondents in the year 2000. Dispute arose, as regards the acceptance of his request, and it is the subject matter of W.P.No.5418 of 2006. The said writ petition was closed by this Court on 08.08.2008, in view of the fact that the petitioner had submitted an application under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations. One of the conditions, which the petitioner had incorporated in his application, was in relation to rejection of his application ﬁled under voluntary retirement scheme and pendency of W.P.No.5418 of 2006. Another condition was, as regards the transfer of the petitioner from Hyderabad to Guntur, which gave rise to W.A.No.1168 of 2006. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court passed an order on 08.08.2008, directing the respondents to examine the application of the petitioner, afresh, in view of closure of W.P.No.5418 of 2006. Today, the leaned Senior Counsel has placed before this Court, copy of the order dated 25.08.2008, whereunder, respondents have accepted the request of the petitioner and have retired him from service. With this, the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed. It is informed that the matter, in relation to the transfer of the petitioner, has already been given a quietus. At any rate, it becomes redundant, once the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement has been accepted. During the pendency of these proceedings, petitioner was also issued a charge memo, dated 04.04.2007, alleging that he made an attempt to bring external pressure on the authorities. The learned Senior Counsel represents that the said proceedings have been closed by issuing censure and the same would not have any eﬀect on the right of the petitioner to receive benefits under the order dated 25.08.2008. The writ petition is accordingly closed, with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ (L.Narasimha Reddy,J) 25th August 2008 sh