1. In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has challenged the orders of the opposite parties refusing withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and for relieving him from duty with effect from 30.11.1999.
2. The factual matrix of the case lies within a narrow compass.
Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher under the Hindustan Steel Ltd., Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela and joined as such on 15.9.1973 in Ispat Lower Secondary School, Sector-I, Rourkela. In course of his employment he was promoted to the post of Assistant Teacher (ES) (A2) and posted in the Fertilizer High School Fertilizer town ship under the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (in short, SAIL). On 15.5.1999 the authorities of SAIL introduced voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1999 (in short, V.R. Scheme) vide Circular No. 753 dated 15.5.1999 making it operational for a period of eight months, i.e. from 1st June, 1999 to 31st January, 2000. The V.R. Scheme was made applicable to permanent employees and the purpose of the aforesaid Scheme was to achieve optimisation of manpower for effective utilisation of human resources and for reduction of cost of productivity with qualitative work. However, grant of voluntary retirement was under the sole discretion of the management.
3. The Petitioner submitted his option in a prescribed form for availing of the benefit under V.R. Scheme w.e.f. 30th November, 1999. On 24th September, 1999 Steel Authority of India accepted V.R. Scheme offered by the Petitioner by directing him to retire from service w.e.f 30th September, 1999 A.N. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the SAIL issued Anr. circular being No. 762 dated 6.10.1999 modifying the operational period upto 31st October, 1999 instead of 31st October, 2000 as was done periodically. The Petitioner is said to have submitted Anr. application to the opp. party No. 3 (Managing Director, Steel Authority of India) through proper channel indicating therein that the application submitted by him on 20.9.1999 might be treated as withdrawn and the office order retiring him from service be recalled. As per the amended personnel Policy Circular No. 762 dated 6.10.1999, the V.R. Scheme was curtailed and limited to 31.10.1999, but no action has yet been taken by the SAIL. Therefore, the Petitioner being aggrieved by such callous, nonchalant and the casual attitude of the opp.parties filed this writ Petitioner for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. The opp.parties in their counter have submitted that on the basis of the application submitted by the Petitioner , the management has accepted such offer and passed an order allowing the Petitioner to retire from service w.e.f. 30th November, 1999. On 6th October, 1999 the management only limited the period of V.R. Scheme for submitting offer till 31st October, 1999, whereby it cannot be construed that after that date the management cannot accept any offer under V.R. Scheme. The Petitioner submitted the application for withdrawal on 22.10.1999. The management informed him on 27.11.1999 that his request for withdrawal was turned down and accordingly, he was relieved from his duty on 30.11.1999. It is further submitted by the opp.parties that pursuant to the said Scheme P.F. amount of Rs. 3, 87, 610/- was paid to the Petitioner by cheque. Other dues such as gratuity etc. payable to the Petitioner have been released by the opp.parties which the Petitioner has accepted. Petitioner has also been receiving monthly retiral benefits periodically from December, 1999 and quarterly after revision of pay from Rs. 31,181.69 paise to Rs. 34, 936. 70 paise w.e.f. 1.1.2001. The Petitioner having availed of the benefits under V.R. Scheme, he could not therefore, be permitted to withdraw the offer and join in service.
5. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner has strongly contended that before V.R. Scheme became effective, it is open to the offerer to withdraw the same and claim to join in service, even though it was formally accepted by the management. Thus, the Court should pass a mandate against the opp. parties directing them to continue the Petitioner in service in the post where he was working prior to 30th November, 1999. In support of his submission he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1341 in the case of Shambu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India Ltd. and Anr.. It is submitted that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective, and it will become effective when it operates to terminate the employment or the office tenure of the resigner.
6. In order to examine the contention of the Petitioner, we are inclined to go through the Scheme circulated by the opp. parties. Under the scheme, the Chairman has reserved a right to extend/limit the period of operation of the Scheme or to withdraw and re-introduce the Scheme and to modify/alter/amend the Scheme in any manner without any notice and without assigning any reasons therefore. The competent authority shall have full discretion to accept or reject the request of an employee for voluntary retirement. In
It is now settled legal position that unless the employee is relieved of the duty, after acceptance of the offer of voluntary retirement or resignation Jural relationship of the employee and the employer doesn''t come to an end. Since the order accepting the voluntary retirement was a conditional one, the conditions ought to have been complied wit. Before the conditions could be complied with, the Appellant withdraw the scheme. Consequently, the order accepting voluntary retirement did not become effective. Thereby no vested right has been created in favour of the Respondent. The High Court, therefore, was not right in holding that the Respondent has acquired a vested right and therefore, the Appellant has no right to withdraw the scheme subsequently.
7. Hon''ble Supreme Court in recent judgment reported in All India Services Law Journal III 2003 (I) ISLJ 253 in the case of Bank of India and Ors. v. O.P. Swaranakar etc. held as follows:
It may be that therein there did not exist a clause to the effect that once an option to voluntary retirement is accepted, the employee cannot withdraw the same, but law laid down therein would apply herein also.
From the Scheme it appears that once an offer has been made by the employee, it is open to the employer either to accept the offer or to reject it without assigning an reason therefore. Therefore, a choice has been given to the employer. Pursuant to the V.R. Scheme the gratuity amount and other service benefits have been extended to the Petitioner and he has accepted the same. The subsequent differential increase in quarterly allowances, after revision of pay has also been paid to the employee. In this background, no other interpretation can be arrived at, save and except, the offer was accepted by the management and accordingly benefits had been received by the employee. Since, such action is bilateral and the employee has received the benefit later on, in cannot be turned down despite acceptance of the offer. He is also further estopped from questioning the discretion exercised by the employer. Estoppel is based upon the acceptance and retention by any one having knowledge or notice of the facts or benefits from a transaction, contract, instrument, regulation which he might have rejected or contested. This doctrine is obviously a branch of the rule against assuming inconsistent positions. Subsequent curtailment of the period for exercising the option does not mean defying it in any manner, but the employer''s choice to accept the offer was limited to the period which was reduced.
8. Thus, examining the contentions raised by the Petitioner from any angle, we do not find there is any legal or factual infirmity in accepting the V.R. Scheme offered by the Petitioner.
9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
B.P. Das, J.
10. I agree.
