THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.14625 of 2008 Dated: 23.04.2010 Between: B. Shiromani. .. Petitioner. And The Accountant General (A & E), Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Assistant Teacher with effect from 01.09.1983 in Kanya Patashala High School, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, which is a State Aided School, and worked upto 01.09.2003. On completion of 20 years of service, by advance notice in the form of an application, dated 13.06.2003, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement with effect from 01.09.2003, on health grounds. Subsequently, vide letter dated 04.07.2003, the petitioner again requested the 3rd respondent -District Educational Officer (D.E.O.), Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, to accept her voluntary retirement application. In response thereto, for taking further action in the matter, the 3rd respondent, through his letter No.13353/B3/2001, dated 29.07.2003, requested the Head Master, Kanya Patashala High School, Tandur, to submit his remarks on the representation filed by the petitioner. Thereupon, the 4th respondent- President-cum-Correspondent of Kanya Patashala High School, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, through his letter dated 24.09.2003, submitted his remarks recommending to accept the voluntary retirement application of the petitioner. However, on 08.10.2004, the petitioner addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent stating that she has recovered from sickness and that she being a widow having three children, it is very burdensome for her to manage the family affairs and, therefore, requested for permission to join duty by duly canceling the voluntary retirement application given by her. The 3rd respondent, in turn, addressed a letter to the petitioner on 04.11.2004 asking her to submit Medical Fitness Certificate for consideration of her request with regard to granting permission to join duty. The petitioner contends that, in response to the said letter, she submitted Medical Fitness Certificate on 06.10.2004, but she was not permitted to join duty and, ultimately, to her utter surprise, the 3rd respondent, through his proceedings in Rc.No.13353/B3/2001, dated 29.04.2005, accorded permission to her to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 01.09.2003 A.N., on domestic affairs, and further advised the 4th respondent to take action in processing the pension papers and other benefits as per rules. However, by letter dated 07.09.2006, the 1st respondent-Accountant General (A & E), A.P., Hyderabad, who is the pension sanctioning authority, after due verification of records, had returned the pension proposals of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent with a request to re- verify the eligibility of the petitioner for voluntary retirement as per Rule 43(1) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, with reference to E.O.L availed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a letter on 04.12.2006 to the 3rd respondent, requesting him to permit her to join duty duly accepting her withdrawal notice of voluntary retirement, as she came to know that she is not eligible for voluntary retirement on the ground that she had availed 132 days of E.O.L., which cannot be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of arriving the qualifying service of 20 years as referred to in Rule 43 (1) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Again, the petitioner addressed another letter dated 12.02.2007 to the 3rd respondent to permit her to join the duty by duly canceling the voluntary retirement permission order. In response to the letter dated 15.03.2007 of the 3rd respondent, seeking guidance and clarification with respect to the case of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-Director of School Education, Hyderabad, through proceedings dated 12.02.2008, informed the 3rd respondent that there are no rules to take an employee who voluntarily retired from service into Government service again after a lapse of four years, and a copy of the said proceedings was also marked to the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation on 13.02.2008 to the 2nd respondent to allow her to join duty, but so far no action has been taken thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3 stating that the proposal submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has been submitted to the Chairman, District Medical Board, Ranga Reddy District, Secunderabad. It is also stated that in pursuance of the self declaration submitted by the petitioner along with her family members willingness certificate and also the Medical Certificate, dated 24.09.2004, issued by Dr.E.A.Santosh Kumar, Professor of Medicine, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, certifying that the petitioner cannot perform her teaching profession efficiently because of ailment being suffered by her and that she is not fit for further service, the petitioner was permitted to go on voluntary retirement from service with effect from 01.09.2003, vide proceedings dated 29.04.2005. It is also stated that when pension proposals of the petitioner were submitted to Accountant General, A.P. Hyderabad, the same were returned with a request to re-verify the eligibility of the petitioner for voluntary retirement as per Rule 43(1) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, with reference to E.O.L. availed by her, as the same shall not be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of arriving the qualifying service of 20 years. It is also stated that by letter dated 31.12.2006, the petitioner requested to permit her to join duty duly canceling the voluntary retirement permission, but the petitioner has been informed through proceedings dated 17.01.2007 that it is not feasible to consider her request to take her back into service as there are no rules in that regard. It is further stated that as the voluntary retirement permission has been accorded to the petitioner as per her own request, she cannot be taken back into service thereafter, as there are no rules in existence in that regard. According to the petitioner, she gave advance notice in the form of an application, dated 13.06.2003, willing to take voluntary retirement with effect from 01.09.2003, on the ground of her ill-health, and the same was accepted by the Management after four years. In the meantime, the petitioner addressed a letter on 08.10.2004 to the 3rd respondent to permit her to join duty by duly canceling the voluntary retirement application submitted by her, and in response to the same, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter on 04.11.2004 asking the petitioner to produce the medical fitness certificate for consideration of granting permission to her to join the duty in Kanya Patashala High School, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. However, despite the petitioner submitting the Medical Fitness Certificate, surprisingly the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 29.04.2005 permitting the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 01.09.2003 A.N. on domestic affairs, and requesting the correspondent of Kanya Patashala High School, Tandur, to take action in processing the pension papers and other benefits as per rules. These facts are not in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment reported in G. Srikrishna Murthy vs. D.E.O. (D.B)[1], wherein while considering Rule 43 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, it was held that once the three months period has lapsed without any decision being taken by the Management one way or the other within the said period, the notice of voluntary retirement issued by the employee would lapse as soon as the statutory period had expired. He further submits that before accepting the application for voluntary retirement, if the applicant intends to withdraw the same, he or she may do so by filing an application in writing. Law is well settled in this regard. In the case on hand, the notice of voluntary retirement dated 13.06.2003 lapsed automatically, as the permission for voluntary retirement was not accorded within the stipulated period of three months. Even otherwise, before the letter of voluntary retirement was accepted and acted upon by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner expressed her willingness to withdraw her voluntary retirement application and permit her to join duty, but instead of permitting the petitioner to join duty, the 3rd respondent, after a lapse of four years, accorded permission to the petitioner to go on voluntary retirement, by proceedings dated 29.04.2005, ignoring the letter of withdrawal submitted by the petitioner, and thereafter the 2nd respondent also, by proceedings dated 12.02.2008, informed that there are no rules to take an employee who voluntarily retired from service into Government service again after a lapse of four years. In these circumstances, both the proceedings dated 29.04.2005 and 12.02.2008 issued by the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively do not stand scrutiny of law and are liable to be set aside as ex facie arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 29.04.2005 and 12.02.2008 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 2 respectively and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with all attendant benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 23.04.2010 v v [1] 1990 (2) ALT 43 (D.B.)