- (1.) The special appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 29 May, 2015.
(2.) The respondent was borne on the establishment of the appellants as a Development Officer. The services of the respondent were governed by the General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 19761. On 7 July, 1999, a communication was issued to the respondent by the Senior Divisional Manager of the appellants recording that under the Scheme, every member of the development staff was required to work with such cost as to maintain his cost ratio within the limits stipulated in sub-clause (b) of Clause (17) of Para 3 of the Scheme. The respondent was informed that his performance during the six years from 1993-94 to 1998-99 failed to meet the prescribed parameters. As a result the basic pay of the respondent had been fixed with effect from 1 April, 1999 at the minimum of the pay-scale of a Development Officer Grade-II due to a reduction in terms of Para 11 of the Scheme. The attention of the respondent was drawn to Para 11 (5) of the Scheme which provided as follows: "The Development Officer whose basic pay has been fixed at the minimum of the scale of Development Officer Grade II after reduction under sub-paragraph (4), shall be provided an opportunity of one year to conform to the stipulated cost limits and will be issued a warning that his services shall be liable for termination if he still continues to exceed the stipulated cost limits."
(3.) Accordingly, the respondent was informed that he was being provided an opportunity to conform to the stipulated cost limits during his performance for 1999-2000 so as to avoid the consequence mentioned in Para 11 (5). On 12 January, 2000, the respondent issued a notice seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 1 March, 2000 and requested that he should be relieved from the afternoon of 29 February, 2000 with all consequential benefits. The appellants responded to that request through their Regional Manager on 5 May, 2000 and turned down the request of the respondent for voluntary retirement on the ground that having due regard to his past business performance and other parameters, it was not possible to accede to the request of voluntary retirement. On 19 May, 2000, the services of the respondent were terminated under Para 11 of the Scheme by issuing a notice of 30 days. The respondent replied on 5 July, 2000 stating that in terms of his notice dated 12 January, 2000, his services had come to an end automatically on the expiry of 90 days and that with effect from 11 April, 2000, he should be treated as having voluntarily retired from service. According to the respondent, there was no provision for the acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement and hence, the rejection of his request on 5 May, 2000 was without any legal effect.;