JUDGMENT
R.K. Dash. J.
1. The petitioner by filing this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calls in question the legality of the order, Annexure-4 whereby he has been retired from service of the State Bank of India since February 28, 1990.
2. Petitioner’s case may shortly be stated thus: The petitioner was an officer in Middle Management Grade Scale-Ill of State Bank of India. He was officiating in the Senior Management Grade Scale-IV and at the time of being given voluntary retirement he was working as Branch Manager, Nawarangpur Branch in the district of Koraput. He had a good service career all through and his conduct was free from blemish. He served to the best satisfaction of his employer for which he was given excellent remarks in his personal file. Despite having such a good record he was denied promotion to the Senior Management Grade Scale-IV, whereas his juniors were promoted. Being denied of promotion he was completely demoralised and felt that his
sincerity, devotion to duty and good remarks in the service record are all meaningless. This led him to seek voluntary retirement from service for which he intimated the Chief General Manager expressing his desire to take retirement under notice, Annexure – 1. Subsequently his well wishers persuaded him to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement and accepting their advice he wrote a letter under Annexure-3 to opposite party No. 3 intimating that he was withdrawing the said notice. A few days thereafter he addressed another letter, Annexure-5 to opposite party No. 3 that in case his promotion to Senior Management Grade did not materialise his notice for voluntary retirement should be given effect to. On receipt of both the above letters (Annexures 3 & 5) the Regional Manager intimated the petitioner under Annexure-6 that his request for promotion could not be acceded to by the authority. Ultimately his notice for voluntary retirement was accepted and he was retired from service. Challenging the action of the authorities in retiring him from service the petitioner has filed the present writ application urging that since he had withdrawn the notice prior to expiry of the stated date, the said notice should not have been accepted and he should not have been retired from service.
3. The opposite parties, on the other hand, refuting the petitioner’s allegation have asserted that the petitioner having completed 33 years of pensionable service in the Bank wanted to retire and accordingly served the notice, Annexure-1 seeking voluntary retirement. The said notice was received by the Personnel Department of the Office of Chief General Manager and was placed before the review Committee which having considered the petitioner’s prayer allowed him to retire voluntarily. The said decision of the committee was communicated to the Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Berhampur, for onward intimation to the petitioner. After being informed of the fact that his notice of voluntary retirement had been accepted, the petitioner withdrew the said notice with certain conditions. The authorities, however, did not accede to the petitioner’s prayer. The decision of the committee was given effect to and he was retired from service. The petitioner thereafter applied for payment of gratuity, provident fund and all other dues to which he was entitled and the same were accordingly paid to him. Added to it, he was also paid pension since March, 1990 onwards. On the question of withdrawal of the retirement notice it is asserted that the same being conditional one, was not accepted.
4. In the above factual backdrop the crux of the issue is whether the opposite parties were right in retiring the petitioner from service when prior to the stated date he withdrew the notice of voluntary retirement. It may be reiterated that under notice Annexure-1 the petitioner sought permission for retirement from service with effect from March 1, 1990. However, he withdrew the said notice vide Annexure-3 subsequently indicating that he was withdrawing it with hope that his appeal for promotion to the next higher grade would be considered. The matter did not stop here. He again addressed another letter to opposite party No. 3 under Annexure-5 reiterating that if his appeal for promotion did not materialise the date as mentioned in the notice for voluntary retirement, i.e. February 28, 1990 would hold good. From all these facts and circumstances it is clear to us that the petitioner was determined not to serve any more for which he served notice on his employer for taking voluntary retirement. True it is, he withdrew the said notice later on, but since it was conditional, the authorities did not act upon it. At last his prayer for voluntary retirement was accepted and he was retired from service. He accepted the decision of his authority and applied for
payment of all his dues including pension and gratuity vide Annexures C & D. Consequently he was paid all his dues which were lying with his employer and since retirement he has been receiving his pension. In these circumstances, it will be difficult for us to accept the petitioner’s contention that since he withdrew the notice of voluntary retirement, he should be deemed to be continuing in service.
5. In view of the discussions made above, there having been no merit the writ is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.