Case: RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. &amp; ORS.  Vs. SMT. MOHANI DEVI &amp; ANR

2. The respondent herein was the Petitioner in S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 2839/2012 filed before the Rajasthan High Court. The brief facts that led to the filing of the Writ Petition is that respondent herein had claimed the retiral benefits of her late husband who was appointed in the post of conductor on 15.03.1979 at Alwar Depot of the Appellant Road Transport Corporation. The benefits were claimed on the basis that her husband be deemed to have voluntarily retired from service instead of having resigned3. In the course of service, respondents husband had moved an application seeking voluntary retirement from service on 28.07.2005 indicating health reasons. No order was passed on the said application for voluntary retirement and the respondents husband continued to remain in service4. Subsequently, the respondents husband on 03.05.2006 submitted his resignation as he claimed to be under depression and his health condition had further deteriorated. The resignation was accepted by the authorities on 31.05.2006, he was relieved of his duties and the benefits were paid5. Thereafter, the respondents husband is stated to have immediately submitted an application pointing out that he had erred in mentioning resignation and he desired to retire in view of his earlier application for voluntary retirement. The application also mentioned that no decision had been taken by authorities on his first application dated 28.07.2005 and therefore he should be treated as having voluntarily retired with consequent retiral benefits. The respondent after her husbands death approached the High Court with such prayer6. The learned Single Judge held that the respondents husband had moved an application indicating deteriorating health and forcing such employee to work would be an act of oppression. Additionally, it was held that the voluntary retirement application was not decided within the period prescribed as per the Clause 19- D(2) of the Pension Scheme and reliance was placed on Clause 18-D(2) of RSRTC Standing Orders as per which an employee of the Corporation who had rendered pensionable service was entitled to seek voluntary retirement. It held that the respondents husband would be deemed to have retired even though he had moved another application terming his retirement as resignation in view of the law laid down in Sheel Kumar Jain vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2012 (1) SLR 305. Thus, the appellants were directed to treat respondents husband as having voluntarily retired and release the retiral benefits to which he was entitled7. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the appellants herein in D.B Special Appeal Writ No. 1261/2018. However, no infirmity was found by the Division Bench in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The same has been assailed by the appellants herein in this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the factual aspects which were relevant for decision making in the instant case has not been referred by the High Court during the course of its order but has merely assumed that the voluntary retirement application should be deemed to have been accepted when there was no rejection. As noticed from the objection statement filed by the respondent herein herself, the right to seek for voluntary retirement is stipulated in Rule 50 of Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996. As indicated above, since the same provides for 20 years of qualifying service, the respondents husband had qualified to apply. However, what is relevant to take note is that sub-Rule(2) thereof provides that the notice of voluntary retirement given by the employee shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. In the instant case, the undisputed position is that there was no acceptance and in that circumstance the husband of the respondent had submitted his resignation on 03.05.2006. Though the High Court has indicated deemed acceptance, the same would not be justified in the instant facts since the position which has not been taken note by the High Court is that as on the date when the husband of the respondent had made the application for voluntary retirement on 28.07.2005 the husband of the respondent had already been issued Charge¬Sheets bearing No.7352 dated 16.12.2004 and bearing No.4118 dated 11.07.2005 alleging misconduct. Though the respondent, through the objection statement seeks to contend that the charge alleged against her husband was not justified, that aspect of the matter would not be germane to the present consideration since the position of law is well established that pending disciplinary proceedings if an application for voluntary retirement is submitted there would be no absolute right seeking for acceptance since the employer if keen on proceeding with the inquiry would be entitled not to consider the application for voluntary retirement. Hence there would be no obligation to accept. In the instant facts the proceedings relating to the charge sheet was taken forward and completed through the final order dated 03.09.2005. The punishment of withholding of the increment was imposed. In such circumstance the non¬ consideration of the application for voluntary retirement would be justified12. Be that as it may, as noted the inquiry had been completed and thereafter when the respondents husband submitted the resignation on 03.05.2006, the same was processed, accepted, he was relieved on 31.05.2006 and the payment of terminal benefits were made which had been accepted by him. During his lifetime up to 14.04.2011 the husband did not raise any issue with regard to the same. It is only thereafter the respondent has filed the writ petition before the High Court. Primarily it is to be noticed that when the application for voluntary retirement was filed on 28.07.2005 and had not been favourably considered by the employer, instead of submitting the resignation on 03.05.2006, if any legal right was available the appropriate course ought to have been to seek for acceptance of the application by initiating appropriate legal proceedings. Instead the respondents husband had yielded to the position of non¬ acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement and has thereafter submitted his resignation. The acceptance of the resignation was acted upon by receiving the terminal benefits. If that be the position, when the writ petition was filed belatedly in the year 2012 and that too after the death of the employee who had not raised any grievance during his life time, consideration of the prayer made by the respondent was not justified. The High Court has, therefore, committed an error in passing the concurrent ordersIn that regard, the reference made to para 9 of the writ appeal filed before the High Court would however indicate that though reference is made to the payment disbursed to the respondents husband while accepting the resignation, the same does not disclose that the gratuity amount has been paid. Further, in the appeal filed before this Court the appellants have sought to justify the non¬payment of the gratuity as the husband of the respondent had resigned from service. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, Section 4(1)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides that the gratuity shall be payable if the termination of employment is after 5 years of continuous service and such termination would include resignation as well. In that view, if the gratuity amount has not been paid to the respondents husband, the liability to pay the same would subsist and the respondent No.1 will be entitled to receive the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In that regard it is directed that the appellants shall accordingly calculate the gratuity and pay the same to the respondent No.1, if already not paid. Such payment shall be made within four weeks from this date.