Case: P. Lal Vs. Union of India and Others

within the notice period. He submitted that the notice period was only for 3 months. He submitted that the effective date within which the request for voluntary retirement could be withdrawn was only 3 months. He submitted that in any event by Order dated 2nd March, 1995, the Government of India had accepted the request of Respondent No. 3 and permitted him to retire from service. He submitted that on such acceptance the relationship of master and servant came to an end. He submitted that thereafter Respondent No. 3 could not be permitted to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. He submitted that the case that Respondent No. 3 had been sent abroad and/or asked to work for a foreign firm cannot be believed. 25. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. As has been set out, in Shambhu Muraris case and Bank of Indias case, an employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before the effective date. The effective date would necessarily be the date on which the retirement takes effect. The request, which Respondent No. 3 had made by his letter dated 5th May, 1993, was to be allowed to retire voluntarily with immediate effect. He had also deposited Rs. 30, 870/- in lieu of three months notice. Thus so far as Respondent No. 3 was concerned the effective date was 5th May, 1993. Of course Rule 16(2A) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958 provides that a notice of retirement had to be accepted by the Government of India. In this case, the Government of India accepted the request on 2nd March, 1995 and permitted Respondent No. 3 to retire with effect from May 1993. The moment Government of India accepted the notice the retirement became effective. The relationship of master and servant came to an end. We are unable to accept the submission that the relationship of master and servant did not terminate till the acceptance was communicated to Respondent No. 3. It must be remembered that Rules 16(2) and 16(2A) enable a member to retire from service on giving the required notice. Once such a notice is given it merely has to be accepted by the Government of India. The moment it is accepted the retirement would become effective. If any other view is taken it would lead to absurd results. Such a view would mean that even though a member had given a notice for voluntary retirement stopped attending office and/or gone away abroad and/or taken up some other employment after a number of years of absence the member could claim to come back into service because the Government, for some unforeseen reasons, had not communicated its acceptance. Taken to its absurd length such a member could after superannuation claim that, as the services were not terminated, he was entitled to pension and gratuity on the basis that he had continued in service. The requirement of communication of acceptance would only arise in cases where, even after giving of a notice of voluntary retirement the member continues to work/perform his duties. In such cases the member would need to know from what date he can stop attending office. In cases where the member has by his own conduct abandoned service the severance of the relationship of master and servant takes place immediately on acceptance of notice. We are unable to accept the submission that the severance of relationship of master and servant cannot take effect until there is an Order by the President of India and the same is duly notified in the Gazette. Rules 16(2) and 16(2A) have been set out hereinabove. All that it requires is acceptance by the Government of India and not by the President of India. Admittedly the request for voluntary retirement has been accepted by the Government of India on 2nd March, 1995. No provision or rule could be shown which requires such acceptance to be gazetted. On the contrary, as has been set out hereinabove, in its affidavit before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Government of Punjab had categorically stated that there was no provision for gazetting such an order. 26. That the relationship of master and servant had been severed is clear from the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3 in this Court. The relevant portion has been reproduced hereinabove. Even according to Respondent No. 3 no posting order had been issued to him. According to Respondent No. 3 the Government of India had struck off, his name from the Gradation list, no salary was paid to him and 8 letters have been issued declaring that he has retired from service. We are unable to accept Mr. Jethmalanis submission that, Respondent No. 3 had been sent abroad and asked to take up employment with a foreign firm by the Government. There is no proof of such a case. Neither the Government of India nor the Governments of Punjab/Haryana state that this was so. This appears to us to be an argument in desperation. 27. In view of the above it is held that the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of master and servant had not been terminated. As has been set out hereinabove, the relationship of master and servant had been terminated before Respondent No. 3 sought to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement on 18th April, 1995. Once relationship of master and servant had been severed and/or terminated, by this back door method, Respondent No. 3 could not get back to service. The Order of the Government of India dated 14th August, 1997 cannot be sustained and was correctly quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment requires to be and is hereby set aside. The Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 3rd February, 1998 is restored. 28. Mr. Gupta had raised various other submissions. In the view that we have taken it is not necessary to set out or deal with those submissions. 29.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Jethmalani. As has been pointed out hereinabove, against the portion of the impugned judgment which held that the Appellant had locus and that the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction, Respondent No. 3 had filed a Special Leave Petition. That has been dismissed by this Court on 10th December, 2000. It is therefore not open to Respondent No. 3 to again raise these contentions. These findings in the impugned judgment have become final as against Respondent No. 3Thus Appellant can legitimately point out that Respondent No. 3 has ceased to be in service. Thus Appellants claim is not based on mere expectations or accidental windfall. The Appellant is a person aggrieved and has locus. Even otherwise, as has been explained in great detail, both by the Tribunal as well as the High Court, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Appellant. Merely because Respondent No. 3 made a statement before the High Court that he would not claim seniority would not be a ground for holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. A statement made in a Writ Petition before the High Court would not deprive the Appellant of locus and/or the Tribunal of jurisdictionIf any other view is taken it would lead to absurd results. Such a view would mean that even though a member had given a notice for voluntary retirement stopped attending office and/or gone away abroad and/or taken up some other employment after a number of years of absence the member could claim to come back into service because the Government, for some unforeseen reasons, had not communicated its acceptance. Taken to its absurd length such a member could after superannuation claim that, as the services were not terminated, he was entitled to pension and gratuity on the basis that he had continued in service. The requirement of communication of acceptance would only arise in cases where, even after giving of a notice of voluntary retirement the member continues to work/perform his duties. In such cases the member would need to know from what date he can stop attending office. In cases where the member has by his own conduct abandoned service the severance of the relationship of master and servant takes place immediately on acceptance of notice. We are unable to accept the submission that the severance of relationship of master and servant cannot take effect until there is an Order by the President of India and the same is duly notified in the Gazette. Rules 16(2) and 16(2A) have been set out hereinabove. All that it requires is acceptance by the Government of India and not by the President of India. Admittedly the request for voluntary retirement has been accepted by the Government of India on 2nd March, 1995. No provision or rule could be shown which requires such acceptance to be gazetted. On the contrary, as has been set out hereinabove, in its affidavit before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Government of Punjab had categorically stated that there was no provision for gazetting such an orderThat the relationship of master and servant had been severed is clear from the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3 in this Court. The relevant portion has been reproduced hereinabove. Even according to Respondent No. 3 no posting order had been issued to him. According to Respondent No. 3 the Government of India had struck off, his name from the Gradation list, no salary was paid to him and 8 letters have been issued declaring that he has retired from service. We are unable to accept Mr. Jethmalanis submission that, Respondent No. 3 had been sent abroad and asked to take up employment with a foreign firm by the Government. There is no proof of such a case. Neither the Government of India nor the Governments of Punjab/Haryana state that this was so. This appears to us to be an argument in desperationIn view of the above it is held that the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of master and servant had not been terminated. As has been set out hereinabove, the relationship of master and servant had been terminated before Respondent No. 3 sought to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement on 18th April, 1995. Once relationship of master and servant had been severed and/or terminated, by this back door method, Respondent No. 3 could not get back to service. The Order of the Government of India dated 14th August, 1997 cannot be sustained and was correctly quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In this view of the matter the impugned judgment requires to be and is hereby set aside. The Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 3rd February, 1998 is restoredMr. Gupta had raised various other submissions. In the view that we have taken it is not necessary to set out or deal with those submissions.