S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioner, who was employed on the post of Machinist under the respondents, responded to the Voluntary Retirement Scheme floated by the respondents by making application dated 29.11.1997, in which the voluntary retirement was sought to be made effective with prospective date, i.e., 31.12.1997 in terms of the date prescribed under the Scheme. However, before the voluntary retirement could take effect, the petitioner, it would transpire, made an application on 9.12.1997 seeking to withdraw his offer of voluntary retirement. This request of the petitioner was turned down by the respondents vide letter dated 29.12.1997 and by order impugned herein and in which is embodied the letter dated 30.12.1997, the petitioner was intimated that this application under Voluntary Retirement Scheme has received the seal of approval for his voluntary retirement with effect from 31.12.1997 and accordingly, he was relieved of his duties in the company with effect from the aforesaid date.
(2.) I have heard Sri Ganga Prasad, appearing for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Mukherji for the respondents. The main brunt of the contention canvassed by Sri Ganga Prasad is that since the petitioner had withdrawn the application seeking voluntary retirement before the effective date the respondents were not justified in accepting the application, which had already been withdrawn by the petitioner. Sri P. K. Mukherji appearing for the respondents. In opposition, urged that the petitioner had no right to withdraw his application as per para (11) of the I.T.I. Circular No. 1017/97 dated 3.11.1997, and that apart, the petitioner, urged the learned counsel, accepted the terminal benefits and thereby acquiesced to the order dated 29.12.1997 by which his request made vide application dated 9.12.1997 embodying request for cancellation of his option for voluntary retirement, was 'regretfully' not acceded to by the Management and hence, proceeds the submission of Sri Mukherji, the petitioner is estopped from canvassing the correctness of the impugned order. For the petitioner, it has been submitted that the terminal benefits flowing from voluntary retirement scheme, i.e., compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 1.98,237 besides Rs. 2,873 towards encashment of un-avalled leave given vide cheques dated 11.3.1998 and 22.3.1998 respectively were accepted by the petitioner in direct financial straits stemming from the reasons that his services having come to an end with effect from 31.12.1997, he had no wherewithal to fall back upon to support himself and his family.
(3.) In Balram Gupta v. Union of India and others, 1987 (Suppl) SCC 228, it has been held by the Apex Court that notice of the voluntary retirement, has to be ranked in parity with a letter of resignation and it can be withdrawn at any time before retirement takes effect notwithstanding any rule providing for obtaining specific approval of the concerned authority as a condition precedent for withdrawal of notice. The Apex Court has held that a certain amount of flexibility is required and if such flexibility does not jeopardise Government or administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow withdrawal of the letter seeking voluntary retirement in the facts and circumstances of the case.;