JUDGMENT
R.L. Khurana, J.
1. The petitioner was appointed as Peon with the Handicraft Board in the year 1972. His services were taken over by the respondent-Corporation
in October, 1974. He was promoted as a Salesman on May 5, 1989. In 1991, he was transferred to Bhawanagar Emporium in District Kinnaur, where he remained posted till his voluntary retirement with effect from November 15, 1994. On completion of 22 years of service, the petitioner submitted an application dated August 30, 1993 (Annexure P-1), seeking his retirement from Service. The application (Annexure P-1) reads :
“It is requested that there is nobody in my home to do work and my parents are in old age, for whom there is nobody to look after. Therefore, I want to take retirement from service.”
2. In response to a communication dated September 9, 1993 addressed to the petitioner by the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner vide his application dated Septemebr 20, 1993 intimated that he may be given retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, populary known as Golden Handshake Scheme. Such request for voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted by the respondent, vide office order dated January 24, 1994 (Annexure P-2) with effect from November 15, 1994. After the request for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner was accepted by the respondent-Coporation vide communication dated January 12, 1994 (Annexure P-3), the wife of the petitioner sought the withdrawal of the request of voluntary retirement made by the petitioner. It was averred therein that the petitioner was a poor man having a large family to support and that the request for voluntary retirement was made by the petitioner while he was under mental depression / worries. This Communication dated May 12, 1994 was followed by another communication dated May 17, 1994(Annexure P-4) from the petitioner himself, seeking withdrawal of the request for voluntary retirement made by him earlier vide his letter dated September 20, 1993. The reasons set forth therein were the same, as were set out earlier in the communication dated May 12, 1994 (Annexure P-3) made by the wife of the petitioner. The request for withdrawal of the option seeking voluntary retirement was not accepted by the respondent-Corporation. Consequently, the petitioner was relieved of his duties in terms of the Office order dated January 24, 1994 (Annexure P-2) with effect from November 15, 1994.
3. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the issuance of necessary writ, order or direction for quashing the office order dated January 24, 1994 (Annexure P-2) and for further direction to the respondent-Corporation to permit the petitioner to resume his duties as Salesman with effect from November 15, 1994 with all consequential benefits. It has been averred that the petitioner has been ordered to be retired from service in an arbitrary and illegal manner without permitting him to withdraw his request of voluntary retirement before it became effective with effect from November 15, 1994, The act of the respondent-Corporation in retiring the petitioner, was, therefore, unreasonable, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. It has further been averred that the petitioner while withdrawing his request for voluntary retirement had given valid and cogent reasons, which were not considered by the respondent-Corporation, nor any reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner withdrawing the option for voluntary retirement were given.
4. The respondent-Corporation in its reply-affidavit, admitted that the petitioner was serving as a Salesman with it and at the relevant time was posted at Bhawanagar Emporium in District Kinnaur. It also admitted that the petitioner was relieved of his duties consequent upon his voluntary retirement with effect from November 15, 1994. The respondent-Corporation has stated that it had introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme as at Annexure R-1, and while circulating the said Scheme, it was made amply clear to all concerned that option once exercised would be treated as final and the employees would not have any right to withdraw the option exercised. The petitioner of his own volition opted for retirement under the Scheme and his request for voluntary retirement under the Scheme was accepted with effect from November 15, 1994. At the time of retirement, the petitioner had 20 years of service to his credit. The request withdrawing the option for voluntary retirement was received after such option had been accepted by the competent authority. Besides, under the Scheme, the petitioner could not have withdrawn the option for voluntary retirement once exercised by him. It has further been stated that the petitioner has already accepted and received the entire retirement benefits permissible under the rules and the Scheme.
5. We have heard Sh. M.S. Chandel, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh. A. K. Bansal, Advocate vice Sh. M.C. Mandhotra,
Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation and have also gone through the record of the case.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has contended that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as at Annexure R-1, introduced by the Ministry of Industry, Bureau of Public Enterprises, Government of India was never adopted by the respondent-Corporation for its application to the employees of the respondent-Corporation. Therefore, the petitioner was not governed by the said Scheme. It has further been contended that since the Scheme was not applicable, the petitioner was governed by Bye-Laws framed by the respondent-Corporation governing the conditions of his service.
7. We do not find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Voluntary Retirement Scheme as at Annexure R-l was duly adopted by the respondent-Corporation for application to its employees vide Circular letter dated May 28, 1993 (Annexure R-2). This communication was addressed to all officers of the Head Office/ employees and to all the Complex Managers/ Regional Managers. It is specifically mentioned in Annexure R-2 that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was made applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation, for which the employees were required to give their option for voluntary retirement by August 31, 1993. We, therefore, hold that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme as at Annexure R-1 was made applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation and that the petitioner is also governed by the said Scheme.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that even if the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was made applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner was not governed by the said Scheme, inasmuch as, the petitioner had never opted for the said Scheme. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the letter dated August 30, 1993, Anenxure P-1, vide which, the petitioner had sought retirement from service. It was contended that in the said letter, the petitioner had never opted for retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
9. It is significant to note that though there is no mention in the letter dated August 30, 1993 Annexure P-1 that the retirement was being sought by the petitioner under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. By a subsequent comnunication dated September 20, 1993 from the petitioner in reply to the communication dated September 9, 1993 of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner had specifically opted for retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had never opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme.
10. A perusal of Annexure R-2, vide which the Voluntary Retirement Scheme was made applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation and options for voluntary retirement under the Scheme were invited, there is a specific condition that the option once exercised would be final and the employee having once exercised the option, would have no right to withdraw the same. In view of such specific condition contained in the Scheme, it was not open to the petitioner to withdraw his option for voluntary retirement at a subsequent stage. Therefore, the respondent-Corporation was justified in rejecting the request made by the petitioner vide his letter dated May 17, 1993 (Annexure P-4), withdrawing his earlier option seeking pre-mature retirement from service.
11. In view of our decision that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme is applicable to the employees of the respondent-Corporation and that the petitioner having opted for voluntary retirement under the Scheme, is not entitled to withdraw such an option, the other point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is governed by Bye-Laws framed by the respondent-Corporation with regard to his conditions of service loses its force and we need not go into the said question.
12. It is pertinent that it is open to an employee, who has expressed his desire to retire from service and applies to his superior officer to give him the requisite permission, to change his mind subsequently and ask for cancellation of the permission thus obtained; but he can be allowed to do so as long as he continues in service and not after it has terminated (See: Jai Ram v. Union of India) AIR 1954 SC 584.
13, The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly contended that under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the option seeking voluntary retirement was required to be sent to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. In the present case, the option seeking voluntary retirement made by the petitioner on August 30, 1993 was addressed to the Manager of Bhawanagar Emporium, District Kinnaur. According to the learned counsel, since the option seeking voluntary retirement was sent to an officer, who was not competent to accept the request for retirement, the action of the respondent-Corporation in accepting such request and ordering the voluntary retirement of the petitioner from service with effect from November 15, 1994 is illegal. Undisputedly, the communication dated August 30, 1993 Annexure P-1 was addressed by the petitioner to the Manager of Bhawanagar Emporium, District Kinnaur. However, it is significant to note that the request for voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted by the competent authority, i.e. the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. Since the request for voluntary retirement was accepted by the competent authority, the fact that such request for voluntary retirement was addressed to an officer other than the competent authority, loses its significance and no fault can be found in the office order dated January 24, 1994(Annexure P-2).
14. As a result, the present petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.