IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 2845 of 2008 AND C.C. No. 1124 of 2008 W.P. No. 2845 of 2008 Between: P.Varalakshmi, W/o.P.Rajagopal, Scheduled Castes Service Coop.Society Ltd Hyderabad R/o.134/3RT,Siri Kiran Apartment Vijayanagar Colony,Hyd ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director A.P.State Schedule Caste Cooperation Ltd,Samkshema Bhavan, Masab Tank,Hyd 2 The Dist Collector/Chairman, Hyderabad Dist Scheduled Castes Service Cooperative Society Ltd,Nampally,Hyd 3 The Executive Director Hyderabad Dist Scheduled Castes Service Cooperative Society Ltd, Nampally,Hyd .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari call for records relating to and in connections with the proceedings Ref.No.856/SC/88 dt.4-01-2008 of the 2nd respondent and declare the same as illegal and contrary to facts on record and consequetly direct the respondents to settle and pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SIVAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: M. GANGA RAO (SC FOR APSCCFS,HYD) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 2845 of 2008 and C.C. No. 1124 of 2008 O R D E R: The writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to and in connection with the Proceedings Rf.No.856/SC/88 dated 4.1.2008 on the file of the 2nd respondent and to declare the same as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts on record; consequently to direct the respondents to settle and pay the terminal benefits payable to the petitioner as per her entitlement. It is the case of the petitioner that she was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1987 vide proceedings dated 28.2.1987 and subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, on 25.10.2004. According to her, she performed her duties to the utmost satisfaction of one and all and there were no remarks from any quarter. Due to some personal reasons and also on health grounds, she applied for voluntary retirement on 30.11.2006 and the same was accepted by the competent authority. The terminal benefits for which she is entitled were not settled despite the competent authority accepting her resignation with effect from 1.8.2006 itself. Since no steps were initiated by the authorities for payment of benefits, she made a representation to the 2nd respondent – District Collector on 7.8.2007 requesting to pay the amounts in view of her voluntary retirement and other benefits, such as, pension, gratuity, increments, revision of pay-scales, interest for the delayed payment of PRC etc. as per Rules. Since the respondents have not moved in the matter, she was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 21767 of 2007 seeking appropriate relief and the said writ petition was disposed of on 11.10.2007 directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 7.8.2007 filed by her seeking settlement of terminal benefits and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Since the said orders were not complied with, she had filed a contempt case in C.C. No. 10 of 2008. The said contempt case was closed on 4.2.2008 basing on the orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Ref.No.856/SC/88 dated 4.1.2008. According to the petitioner, the said orders were passed only to overcome the contempt proceedings and the same are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the facts on record and liable to be quashed. In the impugned proceedings, it is stated that the petitioner absconded from duties from 8.6.2005 to 16.1.2006 and from 1.8.2006 onwards and the said period is yet to be regularized. According to the petitioner, the said period was already regularized on 26.3.2007 itself in the following manner, which is borne out of records: Earned Leave 78 days Half Pay Leave 35 days and Extraordinary leave on loss of pay 108 days Further, having sanctioned the leave as such, the 2nd respondent accepted the resignation with effect from 1.8.2006 and suggested to settle the monetary benefits duly regularizing the above gap period. Therefore, it is not proper on the part of the respondents to contend that her resignation was not acted upon by the authorities. Further, no disciplinary action was taken and no such proceedings are pending against her as per the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent. Since sanction was already accorded by the authorities, it is absolutely incorrect to say that as the disciplinary proceedings are pending the question of accepting the resignation w.e.f. 1.8.2006 does not arise. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are arbitrary and illegal and liable to be quashed. Though no counter is filed by the respondents, learned counsel Mr. Ganga Rao, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has made all false allegations and the impugned order is perfectly valid and justified and as per the records, the petitioner has absconded from 8.6.2005 to 16.1.2006 and from 1.8.2006 onwards and this period is yet to be regularized. Further, the disciplinary proceedings are also pending. Therefore, the question of accepting her letter of voluntary retirement and extending all other benefits does not arise. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the respondent was directed to place the original record before the Court. Accordingly, the original record was placed before the Court on 29.2.2008. On examination of the record produced by the learned counsel for the respondents, it revealed that the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 1.8.2006 but no communication to that effect was received by the petitioner. Further, the absence of the petitioner from the date of his application for voluntary retirement till 31.7.2006 was regulated by way of granting leave as per eligibility, as is noticed above. Thereafter, it seems, the matter was re-examined and the order accepting the petitioner’s voluntary retirement was not communicated to her. Be that as it may, once the absenteeism was already regulated as noticed above, the question of treating such period as absenteeism and contemplating to take action against her and not permitting her to voluntarily retire from service appears to be unreasonable. The petitioner is a lady, aged about 46 years. She has categorically stated that due to some personal reasons and on health grounds she applied for voluntary retirement on 30.11.2006. Generally speaking, no Mandamus can be issued to an employer to accept the voluntary retirement offered by the petitioner. But, in this case, the respondents themselves have accepted the voluntary retirement and regulated the period from the date of voluntary retirement till the date of acceptance, as noticed above. Therefore, the action of the respondents in contemplating to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and holding that it cannot be treated that the petitioner has retired voluntarily from service and entitled to retrial benefits, is arbitrary and illegal. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was involved in any other misconduct or her services are so essential that she cannot be relieved from her duties for effecting voluntary retirement. In the facts and circumstances, nothing prevented the respondents from effecting voluntary retirement, which was accepted with effect from 1.8.2006, and settling all her benefits as such. No extraordinary reasons were furnished in the impugned order also. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to treat that the petitioner has retired voluntarily from service with effect from 1.8.2006 and pay all the benefits, for which she is entitled, as per law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the contempt case is closed for the present. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 17-12-2008. MVB.