SSK/927 1 WP/5358.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5358 OF 2011 Shri Uthreshwar Baliram Jadhav ....Petitioner Versus Jivhaida Apangamati Vikas Sanstha & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Ashok G. Toraskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 10th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Physiotherapist to treat mentally handicapped children in the School run by respondent no.1 w.e.f. 3rd July, 1995. The petitioner thereafter started a Society by name “Vatsalya Mentally Handicapped Multipurpose Society” at Kurduwadi, District Solapur. The petitioner was working as a Secretary of the said Society and, his wife and mother was working as office bearers of the said Society. The petitioner was required to devote time to the said Society, and therefore, he took long leave for a period of one year from 14th February, 2005 to 14th February, 2006. The petitioner thereafter made an application on 3rd February, 2006 for extension of this leave for further period of one SSK/927 2 WP/5358.11 year. This leave application came to be rejected, and therefore, the petitioner gave notice of voluntary retirement on 1st September, 2006 to respondent no.1. The said notice is annexed at Exhibit “F” page 112. By this notice, the petitioner unequivocally informed respondent no.1 that he stands retired w.e.f. 30th November, 2006 or three months from the date of giving of this notice whichever is later. The petitioner thereafter withdrew his gratuity and provident fund. For the first time in the month of May, 2008, the petitioner challenged the above said notice of voluntary retirement before the Appellate Authority viz. Divisional Social Welfare Officer. The petitioner contended that the notice is not legal and valid. The Appellate Authority after hearing both the sides, dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Authority recorded the finding that the petitioner abandoned service with respondent no.1 in order to devote time to his own society. The Appellate Authority also concluded that the notice dated 1st September, 2006 is a notice of voluntary retirement. In these circumstances, it was held that there is no question of termination of the service of the petitioner on the part of the respondent and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and I have also gone through the voluntary retirement notice dated 1st September, 2006 along with the compilation annexed to the writ petition. I find substance in the contention of respondent no.1 that the SSK/927 3 WP/5358.11 petitioner in order to devote time to his own Society, abandoned the service of respondent no.1. The petitioner obtained long leave of one year during the period from 14th February, 2005 to 14th February, 2006 and when Respondent no.1 refused extension, he applied for voluntary retirement. The petitioner has also taken gratuity and provident fund. The petitioner kept mum for a period of 1 ½ years after the notice of voluntary retirement. The silence on the part of the petitioner speaks volume. The petitioner preferred an appeal, however, without filing an application for condonation of delay. The findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are in consonance with the evidence and documents on record. Same does not require interference of this Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)