Mr. Balaga Gowri Shankar vs Telangana State Southern Power ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3902 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                                    AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

                Writ Appeal No.476 of 2022

JUDGMENT:           (Per Hon'ble Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

       This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant

aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2022 in Writ

Petition No.37590 of 2015 passed by the learned Single

Judge of this Court.


2.     Heard M/s.Chandran Law Offices for the sole-

appellant, and Mr.R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel       for      Telangana         State      Southern       Power

Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL), for the

respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that

initially the appellant was appointed as 'Sub-Engineer'

with the respondent on 06.11.1993; while the

appellant was discharging his duties as Additional

Assistant Engineer, the appellant submitted an

application on 12.01.2015 to take Voluntary

Retirement w.e.f. 15.02.2015; the request of the

appellant was accepted by the respondent vide ::2:: AKS,J & NVSK,J wa_476_2022

proceedings dated 28.02.2015 w.e.f. 15.02.2015, and

the appellant was also relieved of his duties; after

nearly six months from the date of acceptance of

Voluntary Retirement, the appellant has submitted an

application on 24.08.2015 seeking permission to

withdraw his offer of 'Voluntary Retirement', as the

appellant had erroneously submitted an application

seeking 'Voluntary Retirement' thinking that the

'Voluntary Retirement Scheme' is in existence.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further

contended that when the appellant had realised that

the 'Voluntary Retirement Scheme' which was

launched by the respondent has expired in the year

2000 itself and realised the consequences of 'Voluntary

Retirement' only but not under 'Voluntary Retirement

Scheme', the appellant had rightly submitted an

application on 24.08.2015 seeking withdrawal of his

'Voluntary Retirement'; but the respondents have not

considered the said application submitted for

withdrawal of the 'Voluntary Retirement' and rejected

the case of appellant vide proceedings dated ::3:: AKS,J & NVSK,J wa_476_2022

14.10.2015; when the respondent has rejected the

case of appellant for reinstatement by duly setting

aside the 'Voluntary Retirement' of the appellant, the

appellant has filed Writ Petition No.37590 of 2015

before this Court; the learned Single Judge of this

Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition vide

order dated 08.04.2022 without appreciating any of

the contentions raised by the appellant; and therefore,

prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the

Writ Appeal by duly setting aside the impugned order

dated 14.10.2015; and further to direct the respondent

to re-induct the appellant into service by duly recalling

the 'Voluntary Retirement' order dated 28.02.2015,

and allow the Writ Appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent contended that when once the appellant

has retired in pursuance to the application submitted

by the appellant for 'Voluntary Retirement', the

question of accepting the withdrawal of 'Voluntary

Retirement' would not arise; it is settled principle that

after acceptance of 'Voluntary Retirement / ::4:: AKS,J & NVSK,J wa_476_2022

Resignation', an employee has no right to withdraw the

'Voluntary Retirement' / Resignation; therefore, there

are no merits in the Appeal and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

6. This Court, after considering the rival

submissions made by the parties, is of the considered

view that the learned Single Judge was justified in

dismissing the Writ Petition No.37590 of 2015 with the

following observation :

"5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was working as Additional Assistant Engineer (A.A.E.) and therefore it cannot be said that he was not aware of the provisions of the Pension Rules which are applicable to his service. As admitted by the respondent, there was a voluntary retirement scheme introduced by the respondent in 1999 and the said scheme was in force only up to 2000. Under the said scheme, the petitioner was not qualified because he had not put in the required 25 years of service. The petitioner made request for voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 12.01.2015 and when the acceptance letter dated 28.02.2015 was issued and served on the petitioner, he never raised any objection. He remained silent for a period of 6 months and thereafter he sought withdrawal of his letter for voluntary retirement. Since there was no scheme introduced by the department, i.e., the respondent for ::5:: AKS,J & NVSK,J wa_476_2022

voluntary retirement during that period, it cannot be said that the application of the petitioner ought to have been considered under the scheme and not under Rule 43(1) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. At this late stage, the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement and for reinstatement into service, even without back wages cannot be accepted."

7. From the above, it can be seen that once the

application submitted by the appellant for 'Voluntary

Retirement' has been accepted, and the appellant was

also relieved from services w.e.f. 15.02.2015, the

question of accepting the withdrawal of 'Voluntary

Retirement', that too after a period of six (06) months

from the date of relieving, would not arise.

8. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal

and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending

if any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

___________________________ N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date : 27.07.2022 Ndr