Kerala High Court
Jaya P.K vs Cashew Export Promotion Council ... on 24 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
Wednesday, the 24th day of May 2023 / 3rd Jyaishta, 1945
WA NO. 408 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2022 IN WP(C) 13738/2022 OF THIS COURT
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JAYA P.K., AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. T. SREEKUMAR, 30/275, UTHRAM, PKRA
83, NEAR PAVANKULANGARA TEMPLE, THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHURA,
KERALA- 682301
BY ADVOCATES M/S.SANTHOSH MATHEW, ARUN THOMAS, KARTHIKA MARIA, VEENA
RAVEENDRAN, ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL, MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS, ABI BENNY
AREECKAL, KURIAN ANTONY MATHEW, KARTHIK RAJAGOPAL, SANITA SABU
VARGHESE & MANASA BENNY GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1. CASHEW EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, CASHEW BHAVAN, MUNDAKKAL
WEST, KOLLAM, KERALA - 691001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. THE CHAIRMAN, CASHEW EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, CASHEW
BHAVAN, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM, KERALA- 691001
3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND SECRETARY, CASHEW EXPORT PROMOTION
COUNCIL OF INDIA, CASHEW BHAVAN, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM, KERALA -
691001
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, CASHEW EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA, CASHEW
BHAVAN, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM, KERALA- 691001
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CASHEW EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL OF INDIA,
CASHEW BHAVAN, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM, KERALA- 691001
BY ADVOCATE SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the
circumstances stated in the appeal memorandum, the High Court be pleased
to stay the operation of the Impugned Judgment dated 21.12.2022 in W.P.(C)
No. 13738 of 2022, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.
This Writ Appeal again coming on for orders on 24/05/2023, upon
perusing he appeal memorandum and this Court's order dated 17/02/2023, the
Court on the same day passed the following.
ALEXANDER THOMAS & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.408 of 2023
[arising from judgment of the High Court of Kerala in W.P(C).13738/2022 dated
21.12.2022 ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023
ORDER
Alexander Thomas, J.
Sri.Anil Sebastian Pulickel, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit on the basis of instructions that Ext.P1 dated
16.08.2021 was submitted to R3 for voluntary retirement and later the
appellant had submitted Ext.P6 dated 29.01.2022 for withdrawing the
said request.
2. The case of the respondents, based on Ext.P7 and Ext.R3(h)
is that, in the 716th meeting of the Committee of the Administrators of
the respondents held on 09.12.2021, they have accepted the request for
resignation and the same has been communicated to the petitioner as
per Ext.R3(h) dated 14.12.2021. The petitioner would state that the
above said decision said to have taken on 09.12.2021 has never been
communicated by the respondents to the appellant either by Ext.R3(h)
dated 14.12.2021 or by any other subsequent communication till date.
Further, the appellant came to know about Ext.P7 dated 31.01.2022
W.A.408/2023
when she was served a copy of the same and she was never been served
a copy of Ext.R3(h) dated 14.12.2021. On this basis, learned counsel for
the appellant would argue that, it is well settled that a plea for
resignation or voluntary retirement will became effective not only
when it is accepted by the competent authority but, after the
competent authority accepts the same and communicates its decision
accepting the said plea to the employee concerned and that the
employee is entitled to withdraw the request for resignation or
voluntary retirement any time before the decision of the employer to
accept the resignation or voluntary retirement, as the case may be, is
duly communicated to the employee concerned. In this regard, the
appellant would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
Ashok Kumar Sahu v. Union of India and Others [(2006)6 SCC
704]. The appellant would also urge that the request made by him in
Ext.P1 was for voluntary retirement, whereas what has been allegedly
decided by the respondents as per Exts.P7 and R3(h) is for permission
for resignation and this shows complete non application of mind and
arbitrariness in the impugned decision making process.
W.A.408/2023
3. The representation made on behalf of Sri.Anil D. Nair,
learned Advocate is that the respondents have instructed him to
appear in this case and that the vakkalath is expected to be executed in
his favour by the respondents shortly and short adjournment may be
given, to file vakkalath and to get instructions and file affidavit or
statement in the matter. Time granted.
4. Respondents will specifically furnish instructions to their
learned counsel as to whether the decision said to have been rendered by
the Committee of Administrators on 09.12.2021 has been communicated
to the appellant either as per Ext.R3(h) dated 14.12.2021 or by any other
communication and to give evidentiary material evidence in that regard,
showing issuance of such communication by the respondents to the
appellant, should be produced along with the statement or affidavit that
may be filed by the respondents in the matter. The above said legal
contentions raised by the appellant's counsel may also be appropriately
responded to by the respondents on the next posting date itself.
5. The respondents will also furnish instructions as to the
rules followed by them in the matter of disciplinary proceedings,
resignation, voluntary retirement and as to whether they have adopted
the Central Rules like CCS(CCA) Rules, CCS(Pension) Rules, etc,. and
W.A.408/2023
state those details.
List the case on 05.06.2023.
Hand Over
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
Sbna/
