M BAGYALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the writ petition is to quash the order of the third respondent in his proceedings Na. Ka. D. No. 1647/2003, dated 8. 2. 2003 and direct the second respondent to cancel the request letter dated 31. 10. 20 02 given for voluntary retirement and to allow the petitioner to work till her superannuation with all benefits.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as a Secondary Grade Teacher at Adi Dravida Welfare School, Kadaperi on 22. 7. 1982 and she worked there upto 17. 12. 1996. She was transferred to Ramapuram Adi dravida Welfare School on 18. 12. 1996 and while working in the said school, she gave a letter dated 31. 10. 2002 to the respondents requesting to permit her to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 31. 1. 2003. Petitioner further submits that before passing any order by the respondents as to the acceptance of her proposal to go on voluntary retirement and before completion of the notice period of three months, i. e. before 31. 1. 2003, she made further request by letter dated 27. 1. 2003 to the second respondent herein, to cancel her earlier proposal, made on 31. 10. 2002, to go on voluntary retirement. Petitioner further states that she also sent a telegram to the District Adi dravida Welfare Officer, Vellore on 28. 1. 2003 stating that due to change of circumstances, she had decided to withdraw her letter dated 31. 10. 2002 and also prayed to allow her to continue as Secondary Grade Teacher till her superannuation. As the petitioner was waiting for an order accepting her withdrawal from her earlier proposal to go on voluntary retirement, on 8. 2. 2003 the impugned order was passed by the third respondent stating that as per the orders of the second respondent dated 4. 2. 2003, petitioner was directed to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 31. 1. 2003.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having completed more than twenty years of service, due to her family circumstances, sent a proposal for voluntary retirement on 31. 10. 2002 with three months notice as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 56 of the fundamental Rules and subsequently, due to her family circumstances, she sent a letter dated 27. 1. 2003 withdrawing her earlier proposal to go on voluntary retirement, followed by a telegram on 28. 1. 2003 and a further letter dated 29. 1. 2003. It is further submitted that the petitioner was allowed to work till 10. 2. 2003 and the impugned order dated 8. 2. 2003 was served on the petitioner only on 10. 2. 200 3. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the withdrawal letter having been sent as early as on 27. 1. 2003, before expiry of three months notice period and before the date of acceptance of her original proposal, the respondents are bound to accept same and consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondents accepting her original proposal dated 31. 10. 2002, ignoring her subsequent request made on 27. 1. 2003 is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in AIR 2000 SC 2473 (Ahambhu murari Sinha v. Project and Development India); AIR 2002 SC 1341 (Shambhu murari Sinha v. Project and Development India Ltd.) and 2005 (8) Supreme 454 (Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Another v. Banshi Lan and Others ).