Amita Singh vs Air India & Anr.
2000 Latest Caselaw 594 Del

ORDER

A.K. Sikri, J.

1. Petitioner in this petition has assailed the decision contained in impugned letter dated 10.9.1997 whereby her request for grant of voluntary retirement has been rejected and it is mentioned in that letter that respondent No.1/management has accepted her resignation w.e.f. 10.7.1997. Petitioner is not interested in the job and that is why she had submitted request dated 13.6.1997 for relieving her from duties. However she wants to be relieved as having voluntary retired from service whereas her request is treated as resignation and accepted as such.

2. The genesis of the dispute has the following factual background. Petitioner joined respondent No.1 on 20.9.1974 as a Traffic Assistant. She was promoted from time to time and last promotion which she received was to the post of Traffic Supervisor. Having served for over a period of 23 years in various capacities, petitioner submitted letter dated 13.6.1997 in which she wrote that despite her best efforts to strike a balance between organisational interest and family requirements/commitments, she was not able to cope up with the working in shifts which was a part of her ssignment at the airport at that time and with deep regret she was compelled to resort to the extreme step of tendering notice of resignation from service of Air India. Letter accordingly mentions that it was notice of 'resignation' from the service. However after stating this, she further mentioned in the letter that she had been given to understand that a Voluntary Scheme for employees was in the offing and was likely to be announced shortly and in case such a scheme is announced and she fulfillled the conditions laid down for qualifying under it, the letter of resignation should be treated as an option for voluntary retirement under the scheme and case be considered under the said scheme and not as a resignation. However no reply to the aforesaid letter was received. In these circumstances, petitioner yet submitted another letter dated 17.7.1997 referring to her earlier letter dated 13.6.1997 and requested for expeditious clearance of her request contained in letter dated 13.6.1997. By another letter of even date ad-dressed to In-charge, Uniform Stores, she returned uniform items received from the employer. Not receiving any response to her communications dated 13.6.1996 and 17.7.1997, petitioner yet wrote another letter dated 25.7.1997 in which she wrote that by her aforesaid two letters, she had requested the authorities to accept her application for grant of voluntary retirement in terms of Service Regulations. In this letter, she further referred to Regulation 46(ii) of Air India Employees erviceRegulations as per which an employee could opt for voluntary retirement on having completed 20 years or more of continuous service and stated that as she was eligible for grant of voluntary retirement in terms of the aforesaid egulation, her request for voluntary retirement be accepted under Regulation 46(ii) of the Regulations as already the matter had been delayed. However on 26.7.1997, she received letter dated 22.7.1997 in reply to her earlier etter dated 17.7.1997 stating that she was required to submit fresh resignation letter without any conditions. This letter was replied to by the petitioner vide her letter dated 27.7.1997 stating that under the relevant Rules and Regulations, an employee could resign by giving 30 days notice in writing and on the expiry of the notice period, resignation is deemed to have been automatically granted. As he had submitted her resignation on 13.6.1997, it would be deemed that she resigned from service on 13.7.1997, and therefore, non-acceptance of resignation by letter dated 22.7.1997 was clearly incorrect and illegal. It was further mentioned that Rules did not provide that her resignation had to be unconditional and she could resign without prejudice to an application made for grant of voluntary retirement. In the last para of this letter, she requested that letter dated 22.7.1997 be withdrawn and she be granted voluntary retirement sought by her in her letters dated 13.6.1997, 17.7.1997 and 25.7.1997 forthwith.

3. After a lull for about one & half months, petitioner received impugned letter dated 10.9.1997 referring to her letter dated 13.6.1997 and stating as under:

"We are pleased to inform you that Management has accepted your resignation w.e.f. 13.07.1997. Please note that your request for voluntary retirement has not been accepted as there is no provision for the same under the Model Standing Order(Central) which apply to workmen category."

4. After receiving this letter, petitioner filed the present writ petition in October 1997 challenging the ground on which voluntary retirement was sought to be refused as there was no provision in the Model Standing Order relating to voluntary retirement. It is further stated in the writ petition that the respondent No.1 itself had been applying the said Regulations to the extent that the same were consistent with the model standing orders. In fact, the respondent No.1 had adopted a consistent policy of following the said Regulations where no provision had been made under model standing orders. The petitioner also annexed documentary proof to the above effect; viz. an office order dated 24.7.1995 wherein it has been notified to all employees that an employee on retirement under Regulations 46(i) or 46(ii) of the Regulation would be entitled to sick leave. Letter dated 13.12.1992 whereby one Mr. Dev Raj has been granted voluntary retirement under Regulation 46(ii) of the Regulations and a notice wherein Regulation 24 has been referred to by the respondent No.1 itself.

5. Respondents filed counter affidavit to the aforesaid writ petition in which stand taken by the respondent No.1 is that Service Regulations did not apply to the 'workmen staff of Air India' and therefore, Model Standing Orders would apply and as there was no provision for grant of voluntary retirement as per the Model Standing Orders, the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement could not be acceded to. Attempt is also made to distinguish the cases cited by the petitioner where request of voluntary retirement in respect of workmen staffwas acceded to by the respondent No.1.

6. However, I may state that the controversy as to whether Service Regulations, particularly Regulation 46 would be applicable or not need not be decided simply because at the time of arguments, Mr. Lalit Bhasin conceded that said Regulations would apply to the petitioner also. However what was emphasised by the respondents during the arguments was that the letter dated 13.6.1997 submitted by the petitioner was simply a letter of resigna-tion and not request for voluntary retirement, and therefore, the question of accepting voluntary retirement did not arise and by letter dated 10.9.1997 petitioner's resignation was rightly accepted w.e.f. 13.6.1997. Thus the present case is to be dealt with on the basis that the aforesaid Service Regulations apply to the case of petitioner also.

7. Once it is conceded that the Regulations apply to the case of petitioner, the disposal of present writ petition would not pose any problems at all. The relevant portion of letter dated 10.9.1997 has already been reproduced above. In the said letter, while accepting the request of the petitioner for resignation, it is stated that her request for voluntary retirement was not accepted as there was no provision for the same under Model Standing Orders (Central) which apply to her case. Therefore, the said letter clearly acknowledges that there was a request by the petitioner for voluntary retirement as well, which was considered but could not be accepted only on the ground that Model Standing Orders were applicable in the case of the petitioner and there was no provision for voluntary retire-ment in these Model Standing Orders. The reason given in the impugned letter is not that petitioner did not make request fo voluntary retirement as is sought to be contended now by respondent No.1. It is obvious from the reasons given in this letter that as per respondent No.1, Regulation 46(ii) of the Service Regulations which contains the provision for voluntary retirement was not applicable to the petitioner who belonged to workmen category. If that was the only reason as stipulated in the impugned letter dated 10.9.1997 and if request for voluntary retirement was rejected on the ground that Model Standing Orders were applicable to petitioner's category and there was no provision for voluntary retirement, the impugned letter dated 10.9.1997 is not sustainable once it is onceded that Regulation 46(ii) of the Service Regulations that provides for voluntary retirement is applicable in the case of the petitioner.

8. It is well settled law that when reasons are given in support of the impugned order, it can be defended in the Court of Law, when challenged, on the grounds mentioned in the impuned order alone and not on any other or additional grounds. This proposition of law was stated by the Supreme Court way back in the year 1952 in the case of Commissioner of Police Vs. Gord-handas, which principle has been restated time and again. It would be apt to quote below para 9 of this judgment which reads as under:- "Para 9: An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the act ings and conduct of those to who they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."

9. In view of the aforesaid position in law, it does not lie in the mouth respondents to argue that since the petitioner did not submit request for voluntary retirement, and what the petitioner submitted was only a letter of resignation, her request of voluntary retirement could not be acceded to. This is not all the reason disclosed in letter dated 10.9.1997. On the contrary, as observed earlier, this letter proceeds on the basis that petitioner made request for voluntary retirement but the same could not be acceded to only on the ground that there was no provision for the same in respect of workmen category to which the petitioner belonged. Thus respondents having themselves proceeded on the basis that there was a request for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner are precluded from contending that petitioner submitted letter of resignation only and not the request for voluntary retirement.

10. Even otherwise, I am not persuaded to accept the argument of the respondents that petitioner had not submitted request for voluntary retirement. No doubt in letter dated 13.6.1997, petitioner had stated that she was submitting her resignation but is was qualified with the request that in case voluntary retirement scheme is announced, which was in the offing and she qualifies under the said scheme then the letter dated 13.6.1997 be treated as request for voluntary retirement and not as a resignation. May be at that time, she was not aware of the fact that there was already in existence provision for voluntary retirement in the form of Regulation 46 of Service Regulations. That is why in her subsequent request letter dated 25.7.1997, she referred to Regulation 46(ii) of the Service Regulations and also mentioned that as she had completed 20 years of service, she was eligible for grant of voluntary retirement. Although, a reading of her various ltters would show that she has been simultaneously making request for resignation as well as voluntary retirement and at times she has confused between resignation and voluntary retirement but the main thrust of all her letters is that the respondents should grant her voluntary retire-ment sought by her. Moreover, in so far as her request for resignation is concerned, by letter dated 22.7.1997, respondent called upon her to submit fresh resignation letter without any conditions. Thus her request for resignation having been rejected on 22.7.1997 what prompted the respondents to accept the same request by impugned letter dated 10.9.1997 is not understood. Although letter dated 22.7.1997 was received on 26.7.1997, in the meantime, petitioner had made another request dated 25.7.1997 categorically mentioning the provisions of Regulation 46(ii) of the Service Regulations and making a specific request that she should be granted voluntary retire-ment. It seems that in view of these facts, even the respondent No.1 was conscious of fact that the petitioner made request for voluntary retire-ment. In fact, as mentioned above, the respondent has itself acted on the premise that request for voluntary retirement was made by the petitioner which was even considered. However it rejected vide letter dated 10.9.1997 on the ground which has not been supported by the respondents themselves inasmuch as it is now conceded that provisions of Service Regulations including Regulation 46(ii) apply in the case of petitioner also. Resultantly impugned letter dated 10.9.1997 is hereby set aside.

11. Now comes the question of relief. Once the case is to be proceeded on the premise that Regulation 46(ii) applies in the case of petitioner and that petitioner had made request for voluntary retirement, her request has to be considered in terms of Regulation 46(ii). Regulation 46(ii) reads as under :

"Regulation 46 (ii) :

The Managing Director may require an employee to retirement after he/she attains the age of 55 years on giving three months' notice in writing without assigning any reason. An employee may also on giving three months' notice in writing retire voluntarily after attaining the age of 55 years or, subject to approval in writing of the Managing Director, at any time on completion of a continuous service of not less than 20 years.

12. There is no dispute that petitioner is eligible to apply for voluntary etirement in terms of aforesaid Regulation inasmuch as she has completed more than 20 years of continuous service. However this request for voluntary retirement does not become automatically effective after the expiry of three months' notice but is subject to approval in writing of the Managing Director. Therefore the prayer as sought for by the petitioner i.e. directing the respondents to grant voluntary retirement cannot be granted straightway. While quashing the impugned letter dated 10.9.1997, Managing Director of respondent No.1 is accordingly directed to consider the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement as per Regulation 46(ii) within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. In case the request is accepted, petitioner shall also be entitled to the benefits of the said voluntary retirement.

13. This writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.

14. No orders as to costs.