Delhi High Court
Mrs. Anil Nandwani vs Food Corporation Of India & Ors on 17 September, 2012
Author: A.K.Sikri
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 17th September, 2012
+ LPA 309/2012
MRS. ANIL NANDWANI ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Leena Tuteja and Mr. Archit
Vasudeva, Advs.
versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Neelam Singh, Adv. for FCI.
+ LPA 316/2012
MRS. NEELAM MADAN ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Leena Tuteja and Mr. Archit
Vasudeva, Advs.
versus
FOOD CORPPORATION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Neelam Singh, Adv. for FCI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
A.K. SIKRI (Acting Chief Justice)
1. The admitted facts are that pursuant to the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme (VRS) announced by the respondent herein, the appellants gave
notice of voluntary retirement on 19.7.2004 and 13.7.2004, seeking VRS
LPA No.309/2012 & 316/2012 Page 1 of 5
w.e.f. 19.10.2004 and 17.10.2004 respectively. However, vide office orders
dated 12.8.2004 and 13.8.2004 respectively, the request for voluntary
retirement was accepted by the respondent. The date of relieving stipulated
therein was 31.8.2004. The appellants withdrew the notice of voluntary
retirement on 26.8.2004, which request of the appellant was turned down on
the ground that earlier request of offer of voluntary retirement had already
been accepted vide office orders dated 12.8.2004 and 13.8.2004
respectively.
2. Clause (VIII)(d) of the VRS under which the employees were asked
to submit their request, read as under:
"Once an employee submits his application for voluntary
retirement under this scheme to the competent authority,
it shall be treated as final and it is not open to the
employee to withdraw the same. The competent
authority within notice period (3 months) shall take a
decision to accept or reject the request and shall
communicate the same to the official concerned".
3. It is clear from the above that once an employee submitted
application for voluntary retirement under the scheme to the competent
authority, the same was treated as final and the employee was not permitted
to withdraw. This Clause came up for interpretation in the case of Food
Corporation of India & Ors. v. Ramesh Kumar, (2007) 8 SCC 141. After
taking note of various judgments on the subject, the Supreme Court took the
view that notwithstanding the aforesaid Clause, an employee who has
submitted the application for voluntary retirement from a future date is
still entitled to
LPA No.309/2012 & 316/2012 Page 2 of 5
withdraw the same. However, such a withdrawal is not permissible after
the request for voluntary retirement is accepted.
4. Keeping in view of the aforesaid ratio, it is to be determined as to
whether the appellants were entitled to revoke the offer of voluntary
retirement or not. As pointed out above, the request was accepted vide
office orders dated 12.8.2004 and 13.8.2004. However, it was to be made
effective from 31.8.2004. Appellant had withdrawn the offer on 26.8.2012.
It is the case of the appellants that since the voluntary retirement was to be
made effective from 31.8.2004, the appellants had a right to withdraw the
same before 31.8.2004 and therefore the applications for withdrawal made
on 26.8.2004 were perfectly justified and proper.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argues that date of
acceptance is to be treated as 12.8.2004 and 13.8.2004 and 31.8.2004 stated
in the Office Order is merely a date of relieving. According to her, since
the request for voluntary retirement had been accepted on 12.8.2004 and
13.8.2004, any application made thereafter i.e. on 26.8.2004 will be of no
consequence. The fate of these cases thus hinges on the question as to
whether the date of acceptance is to be 12.8.2004 and 13.8.2004 or
31.8.2004.
6. This is squarely answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Vice
Chairman and Managing Director A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. R.
Varaprasad and Ors., 2003 (3) Service Cases Toady 919. In that case, the
LPA No.309/2012 & 316/2012 Page 3 of 5
court noticed the judgment in Balram Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1987
SC 2354 as well as J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 1571
wherein the Supreme Court had laid down the law that withdrawal is
permissible before the date of acceptance. However, the court clarified that
date of acceptance would be when the order to this effect is made by the
Competent Authority and not the date on which the employee will be
relieved. The relevant portion of this judgment, laying down the aforesaid
dicta, reads as under:
"18. ...In these appeals from the facts it is clear that
the applications of the respondents opting for voluntary
retirement under the Scheme were accepted and even the
acceptance was communicated to them. Thereafter, they
filed the writ petitions. Hence the High Court was not
right in allowing the writ petitions holding that they
applied for withdrawal before the effective date
considering the date of relieving the employees as the
effective date. In the light of the discussions made in
Civil Appeal No.5638 of 1999 the High Court, in our
view, was wrong in treating 31.7.1999 as an effective
date. The decisions relied on by the respondents before
the High Court or in this Court on facts do not help
them. Moreover, position is to be examined on the facts,
terms of the VRS and circumstances governing a
particular case of withdrawal offer made seeking
voluntary retirement after its due acceptance."
7. To the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Padubidri Damodar Shenoy v. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2009) 10 SCC 514
holding that the date of acceptance is treated as a date when the request
for voluntary
LPA No.309/2012 & 316/2012 Page 4 of 5
retirement/resignation is accepted and the date of relieving is mentioned as
the day for the purposes of payment of retiral benefits.
In view thereof, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the
learned Single Judge and the appeals are dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2012
dk
