Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) Meaningful question springing for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the employee having accepted to retire and having taken retiral benefits without any protest, reservation or demur can turn round and say that his voluntary retirement ought not to have been accepted and his case for withdrawal of the same could be considered?
(2.) This question emerges in the circumstances set out below. Vide letter dated January 15, 1998 the petitioner sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds with effect from April 30, 1998 and made request for payment of terminal benefits including pension as per Bank rules. Request to wave the notice period of 3 months as minimum as possible was also made. In the said letter the petitioner also sought appointment for his son in clerical grade on compassionate grounds. Respondent Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. vide letter dated April 15, 1998 informed the petitioner that the request for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner shall be placed before the Board of Directors in their ensuing meeting and the decision shall be informed to him in due course. The petitioner thereafter wrote a letter to the Assistant General Manager of the respondent Bank on July 24, 1998 that his request of voluntary retirement be treated as withdrawn. In turn the respondent Bank vide letter dated July 29, 1998 informed the petitioner that request for voluntary retirement may only be withdrawn with the prior approval of the competent authority and accordingly the letter of the petitioner dated July 24, 1998 seeking withdrawal of voluntary retirement was placed before the Board of Directors but they did not accept it. Request of the petitioner seeking appointment of his son on compassionate grounds was also declined. The Board of Directors accepted the prayer of voluntary retirement made by the petitioner vide letter dated January 15, 1998 and relieved him at the close of office hours on July 31, 1998 from the services of the Bank. The petitioner seeks to quash the afore quoted letter dated July 29, 1998 of the respondent Bank and prays that he be reinstated in the service. Respondents contested the writ petition by filing reply. It was pleaded that the petitioner vide letter dated July 31, 1998 wrote to the Assistant General Manager that since the Bank had decided to relieve him on the close of office hour on July 31, 1998 his retirement benefits may be released. After the said letter the petitioner took the amount from the Bank as under JUDGEMENT_139_LAWS(RAJ)7_2000_1.html The Bank has also sanctioned pension to the petitioner, in the rejoinder the petitioner averred that for his survival the amount was necessary and because of this he wrote a letter. The petitioner is ready to refund the amount of P.F. the leave encashment is an amount for which the petitioner is otherwise also entitled.
(3.) Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition placed reliance on U.O.I. v. Gopal Chandra Misra (AIR 1978 SC 694) : [1978(1) SLR 521 (SC)] , Bal Ram Gupta v. U.O.I. (AIR 1987 SC 2354) and Krishnamber Jha v. U.0.I. (2000 Lab. I.C. 830) .;