CWP No.4229 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4229 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.04.2010 **** Ranjit Singh . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 10.02.2009 and 05.03.2009 (Annexure P4 & P7, respectively), whereby, he has been retired from service prematurely purportedly on his own request. (2). The petitioner joined the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Punjab as a Radiographer on 11.03.1976 on ad hoc basis and his services were thereafter regularized w.e.f. 31.03.1977. He was later on promoted as Senior Radiographer in the year 2003. On 01.09.2008, the petitioner sent a request in writing seeking CWP No.4229 of 2009.doc - 2 – premature retirement w.e.f. 30.11.2008. His request was formally accepted on 4.11.2008. However, before the petitioner could be relieved on 30.11.2008, he re-considered his decision and made a written request on 19.11.2008 (Annexure P3) withdrawing his previous request for premature retirement and thereafter continued to serve as Senior Radiographer. The petitioner was later on served with one of the impugned orders dated 10.02.2009 (Annexure P4), whereby, his application withdrawing the previous request for premature retirement, was rejected. The Senior Medical Officer informed the authorities that the petitioner was still in service and should be allowed to continue but that request too was turned down and the petitioner was relieved from his duties vide order dated 05.03.2009 (Annexure P7). (3). In a catena of decisions it has been held that the request for premature retirement can always be withdrawn by an employee before the ‘effective date’, namely, from the date when the employee is to be relieved on expiry of the prescribed notice period. The ‘effective date’ in the case of the petitioner was 30.11.2008 when he was to be CWP No.4229 of 2009.doc - 3 – relieved of the duties. However, before that date, the petitioner admittedly withdrew the request for his premature retirement on 19.11.2008. That being so, the respondents could not have passed the impugned orders dated 10.02.2009 and 05.03.2009 (Annexure P4 & P7, respectively). (4). The petitioner seeks support from the order dated 13.04.2000 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India and another (Civil Appeal No.2639 of 2000), wherein it was held that :- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx “……..From the facts stated above, it would be seen that though the option of voluntary retirement exercised by the appellant by his letter dated 18.10.1995 was accepted by the respondent-management by their letter dated 30.7.1997, the appellant was not relieved from service and he was allowed to continue in service till 26.9.1997, which, for all practical purposes, would be the "effective date" as it was on this date that he was relieved from service. In the meantime, as pointed out above, the appellant had already withdrawn the offer of voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 7.8.1997. The question which, therefore, arises in this appeal is whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdraw the said offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective. The question is squarely answered by the three decisions, namely, Balram Gupta CWP No.4229 of 2009.doc - 4 – vs. Union of India & Anr. 1987 (Supp.) SCC 228; J.N Srivastava vs. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 9 SCC 559 and Power Finance Corporation Ltd. vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia (1997) 4 SCC 280, in which it was held that the resignation, in spite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the "effective date". That being so, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside with the direction that the appellant shall be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. There will, however, be no order as to costs…” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (5). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 10.02.2009 & 05.03.2009 (Annexure P4 & P7) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service and grant/release all consequential service benefits and salary, if not disbursed. (6). Ordered accordingly. (7). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 26.04.2010 vishal shonkar CWP No.4229 of 2009.doc - 5 –