R.V. Lakshmi vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
1998 Latest Caselaw 749 Del

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner who was working in the third respondent school submitted an application for voluntary retirement. That was accepted by the Committee of the third respondent school and was forwarded to the MCD. On the 20th of April, 1993, following order was passed by the concerned authority.

  "Director(Edu) vide his orders dated 30.3.93 has been pleased  to accept voluntary retirement of Smt.R.V.Lakshmi,    A.T. w.e.f.31.3.1993." 
 

2. Subsequent to this, the petitioner claimed the retiral benefits.  That 
was  not  granted. Therefore, the petitioner has filed  the  writ  petition 
claiming the release of gratuity amounting to Rs.11,480/- with interest 18% 

per annum w.e.f.1.4.1993. During the pendency of the writ petition, realising the mistake, on the 2nd of July, 1997, the Deputy Education officer(Grants) of the MCD issued the following corrigendum:

"In the office order issued earlier vide letter No.66/Grants/Edu./93 dated 20.4.93 regarding voluntary retirement of Smt.R.V.Lakshmi, Asstt.Teacher of your school w.e.f.31.3.1993, the word voluntary retirement be read as resignation.

This issues under the approval of the Director (PE) dated 17.6.1997."

3. The MCD had treated the application for voluntary retirement as resignation. Admittedly, no notice was given to the petitioner and the MCD had assumed that as the petitioner has served only for 13 years and the qualifying service for voluntary retirement is 20 years, it could only be a resignation and not voluntary retirement.

4. The main stand taken by the MCD is that having regard to the state of mind of the petitioner at the time of submitting the application for voluntary retirement she was not keeping good health, it was only a resignation and, therefore, on the 2nd of July, 1997, the corrigendum was issued. The MCD has absolutely no authority to issue such corrigendum having accepted the voluntary retirement. The learned counsel for the MCD, Mr.S.N.Chaudhary, submitted that under the S Pension Rules the petitioner is not entitled to voluntary retirement and, therefore, error committed by the MCD in 1993 could be rectified.

5. That is not permissible in law and is contrary to the principles of natural justice. The concept of voluntary retirement is totally different from the concept of resignation and the consequences are also entirely different. Therefore, the MCD cannot treat the petitioner's voluntary retirement as resignation. In law, the action taken by the MCD cannot be sustained. The acceptance of voluntary retirement in 1993 had become final and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief.

6. The claim of interest 18% per annum is on the higher side. I am of the view that rate of interest at 12% per annum would be reasonable in the facts and circumstnaces. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

7. The first respondent, MCD, shall pay the sum of Rs.11,480/- to the petitioner with interest 12% per annum from 1.4.1993 till the date of realisation on or before the 30th of November, 1998.

8.There shall be no orders as to costs.