LPA No. 1749 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1749 of 2010 Date of decision : 17.12.2010 New India Assurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Dr. Harbhajan Singh Baath ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 12370 of 2008 as well as the order dated 10.11.2010 passed in the review application No. 317 of 2010, in which it has been categorically held that the request which was sent to seek retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for brevity 'the VRS') was treated as resignation by the appellant-respondent, which was a voluntary act and could not have been substituted by reading the application for the VRS as his resignation. The learned Single Judge has further pointed out that had the management/appellant considered his letter dated 21.02.2006( P- LPA No. 1749 of 2010 -2- 5) as his resignation then there was no necessity to issue him the charge sheet on 14.03.2006 (P-6). It has been further found on the perusal of the notice for retirement under the VRS dated 21.02.2006 (P-5), the communication was to be treated as resignation with immediate effect by the appellant-manangement and then it should have been acted upon because it specifically says that petitioner- respondent wish to resign w.e.f 21.02.2006 but the management/appellant continued to treat him as its employee and issued charge sheet dated 14.03.2006 (P-6). Likewise, the charges have been dropped and the period of absence has been treated as loss of his pay. Learned Single Judge for the aforesaid reasons, allowed the writ petition with liberty to the competent authority to consider the request made by the writ petitioner-respondent on its own merits after affording a number of opportunities to him to make any such representation as he may consider necessary. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the communication dated 21.02.2006 could not have been treated as resignation especially when the title of the communication shows that it is a notice under the VRS. A perusal of the communication further shows that it was required to be given effect immediately which was not done by the management/appellant. On the contrary, the management/appellant had proceeded to charge sheet the writ petitioner-respondent by serving the memorandum of charges on 14.03.2006 (P-6) which culminated in the order dated 08.12.2006(P-8). Accordingly, the view taken by learned Single Judge LPA No. 1749 of 2010 -3- cannot be faulted and the same is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. However, the time given by learned Single Judge is extended to a further period of two months from today. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE December 17, 2010 G.Arora