Dismissed

Narayan Shankar Upadhyaya Son of Shri Madan Mohan Upadhyaya v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

Rajasthan HC17 Jul 2023SAW/379/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan civil bench dismissed an appeal challenging the rejection of voluntary retirement and acceptance of resignation. The court held that resignation is valid once accepted and effective, resulting in forfeiture of past service, thus precluding reinstatement or pension benefits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; consequential benefits including reinstatement and pension were denied.

Narayan Shankar Upadhyaya Son of Shri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:16802-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 379/2023

¶4

Narayan Shankar Upadhyaya Son Of Shri Madan Mohan Upadhyaya, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 1030/35, Kundan Nagar, Ajmer.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. She	David khawat.	Mehla for Mr. S.S.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Virendra	Lodha, Sr. Advocte with
	Mr.	Rachit Sh	arma.

¶10

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Judgment

¶12

17/07/2023

¶13

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioner whose writ petition challenging the order rejecting his request for voluntary retirement, vide order dated 05.11.2008, and accepting his resignation, vide order dated 14.05.2009, stands dismissed and, as a consequence thereof, the prayer to treat the appellant to be deemed to have retired voluntarily from service and entitled to consequential benefits from the said date along with interest thereto is also rejected.

¶14

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed on the post of Oversee (Electrical) in the erstwhile

¶15

[2023:RJ-JP:16802-DB]

¶16

[SAW-379/2023]

¶17

(2 of 8)

¶18

Rajasthan State Electricity Board on 16.09.1975. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Junior Engineer/Overseer on 20.04.1977. He was promoted as an Assistant Engineer (E&M) on 29.09.2003. Because of the family circumstances, the appellant submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement on 01.08.2008 to be given effect from 15.11.2008 in accordance with Regulation 18(3) of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees Service Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 1964"). When the said request was not considered, reminder was sent which led to an order of rejection of the request vide order dated 05.11.2008 assigning the reason of shortage of manpower as a ground for non-acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement.

¶19

Another request was submitted for voluntary retirement from service on 10.12.2008 highlighting the illness of his old father and his wife and because of his duties and busy schedule, he could not take care of his family. The reminder dated 29.01.2009 also did not solicit any positive response. Faced with this situation, the appellant tendered his resignation on 13.04.2009 to the respondent with request to accept the same w.e.f. 16.05.2009. The said request was accepted by the competent authority, vide order dated 14.05.2009, with effect from 16.05.2009. This order dated 14.05.2009 was duly communicated to the appellant.

¶20

The appellant, on receipt of the said order, submitted an application on 25.05.2009 to the respondent praying for reinstatement in service as a mistake had been committed by him by submitting the resignation. When nothing was heard in

¶21

[2023:RJ-JP:16802-DB]

¶22

[SAW-379/2023]

¶23

(3 of 8)

¶24

response thereto, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order of rejection of the voluntary retirement dated 05.11.2008 and thereafter acceptance of resignation vide order dated 14.05.2009 w.e.f 16.05.2009 with the prayer for grant of consequential benefits including reinstatement in service etc.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is not in dispute that the appellant had thirty-three years and six months of service to his credit at the time of submission of his application for voluntary retirement on 01.08.2008 to be effective from 15.11.2008. Once the appellant was duly fulfilling the requirement of the statute, the request of the appellant should have been accepted. Another assertion, which has been made by counsel for the appellant, is that the order dated 05.11.2008 is based upon the ground of shortage of manpower, which was taken as a reason for rejection of the application for voluntary retirement, if that was so, there was no reason for accepting the resignation dated 13.04.2009 as submitted by the appellant vide order dated 14.05.2009 to be effective from 16.05.2009. He asserts that nothing has come on record which would indicate that during the interregnum i.e. 05.11.2008, the date of rejection of the request for voluntary retirement of the appellant and 14.05.2009, the date of acceptance of resignation of the appellant indicating that there was shortage of manpower. He in any case contends that there were no inordinate delay at the end of the appellant in submitting the application for reinstatement in service as the said application was submitted after a period of 11 days from the date of acceptance of resignation i.e. on 25.05.2009.

¶26

(4 of 8)

¶27

[2023:RJ-JP:16802-DB]

¶28

[SAW-379/2023]

¶29

Learned counsel contends that non-acceptance of the request of the appellant for taking him back in service is unreasonable at the end of the respondents, and therefore, the action of the respondent cannot be sustained.

¶30

Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the counsel contends that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, which the appellant was facing while in service especially with relation to the illness of his father and wife, which forced him into initially seeking voluntary retirement from service and thereafter on the rejection of the said request to tender his resignation by way of application dated 13.04.2009. On being asked under what provisions the appellant could seek reinstatement in service after the acceptance of the resignation, as submitted by the appellant, by the competent authority, i.e., the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Nigam in term of Regulation 16 of the Regulations of 1964, he could not refer to any of them. 5. As regards the entitlement of retiral benefits and pension pursuant to the acceptance of resignation, again there is no response at the end of the counsel for the appellant, however, counsel for the respondent has referred to Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) to contend that the resignation from service or a post entails forfeiture of past service and the vires of the said Rule on challenge has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh Khangarot Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Uptpadan Nigam Limited & Ors. - D.B. Civil Writ Petition

¶31

(5 of 8)

¶32

[2023:RJ-JP:16802-DB]

¶33

[SAW-379/2023]

¶34

No.3102 of 2009 decided on 04.07.2015 . Assertion, thus, has been made by learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant is not entitled to benefit of any retiral claims as made on acceptance of the resignation as submitted by the appellant.

¶35

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the pleadings and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. The facts, as have been narrated above, are not in dispute. The question, which arises for consideration in the present appeal, is whether the respondent i.e. the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Nigam was right in rejecting the application for voluntary retirement from service as submitted by the appellant and accepting the application for resignation. Another aspect ancillary which would arise is whether on acceptance of resignation by the competent authority in accordance with the statutory rules governing the service can the resignation be withdrawn leading to the reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

¶36

Answer to this question is that voluntary retirement is governed by Regulation 18(3)(a) of the Regulations of 1964. It is not in dispute that the appellant fulfilled the requirements for submitting an application for voluntary retirement from service. It is also not in dispute that merely because an application has been submitted and that too in consonance with the statutory regulations would entitle an employee to such voluntary retirement. It is, therefore, for the competent authority, in the case of the appellant, the Chairman and Managing Director of the

¶37

[2023:RJ-JP:16802-DB]

¶38

[SAW-379/2023]

¶39

(6 of 8)

¶40

Nigam to accept or deny such a claim for voluntary retirement. The competent authority had proceeded to reject the request in accordance with the statutory regulations on the ground of shortage of manpower.

¶41

The appellant, may be, because of certain family circumstances, tendered his resignation on 13.04.2009 to be effected from 16.05.2009, the Chairman and Managing Director proceeded to accept the same on 14.05.2009 w.e.f. 16.05.2009. Regulation 16 of the Regulations of 1964 deals with notice for quiting service, i.e., ‘resignation’ reads as follows:

¶42

“An employee, shall not leave or discontinue the service in the Board without first giving one month’s notice in writing to the authority competent to make appointment to the post he is holding at the time of his intention to leave or discontinue the service. Provided that such notice may be waived in part or in full by the competent authority as its discretion.”

¶43

It is not in dispute that the resignation has been accepted by the competent authority of the appellant and there is no illegality or violation of the Regulations. If that be so, the acceptance of the resignation letter as submitted by the appellant is in accordance with law. There is nothing forthcoming which would indicate that there is any provision which would after the acceptance of the resignation by the competent authority and coming into force of such resignation, the same could be withdrawn. In the absence of any regulation to this effect, the prayer of the counsel for the appellant for withdrawal of the resignation or for setting aside the order of accepting resignation, cannot be accepted.

¶44

(7 of 8)

¶45

[2023:RJ-JP:16802-DB]

¶46

[SAW-379/2023]

¶47

It goes without saying that in the light of this position, the consequential benefits of reinstatement and retiral benefits including pension also cannot be granted, especially in the light of the fact that Rule 25 of the Rules of 1996 is applicable to the appellant. Rules 25 of the Rules of 1996 is as follows:

¶48

“25. Forfeiture of service on resignation. (1) Resignation from a service or a post entails forfeiture of past service.”

¶49

A perusal of the above makes it clear that on resignation from service or a post forfeiture of past service is entailed. Once

¶50

the service of the appellant stands forfeited upon the acceptance/coming into force of the resignation, no benefits can be granted except as permissible in law.

¶51

The prayer of the appellant for treating his resignation as voluntary retirement and granting him consequential benefits being not permissible under the Regulations would further not entitle him for acceptance of such a request.

¶52

It is settled proposition of law, on the basis of various judgments which have been passed Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time dealing with the issue with regard to the submission of resignation letter and its acceptance, is that normally till the resignation actually became effective, it would be open for an employee to withdraw his resignation. After the acceptance of the resignation and it having come into force there can be no withdrawal of the resignation. A rider, however, need to be put in here by stating that the resignation would become effective depended upon the Regulations/Rules and/or terms and

¶53

(8 of 8)

¶54

[SAW-379/2023]

¶55

[2023:RJ-JP:16802-DB]

¶56

conditions . In case of violation of any of the statutory Rules/Regulations and illegally accepted resignation, the same can always be withdrawn as such accepted resignation would not be in accordance with law or in absence of a legal contractual or constitutional bar, a prospective resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective.

¶57

In light of the above, factual and legal position, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with.

¶58

We, therefore, dismiss the present appeal by upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶59

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶60

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

¶61

a.asopa/

Narayan Shankar Upadhyaya Son of Shri Madan Mohan Upadhyaya v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Shankar Upadhyaya Son of Shri Madan Mohan Upadhyaya v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hitesh Vyas S/O Prakashchand Vyas Vs District Collector

Om Prakash Saini Son of Shri Kailash Chand Saini Vs Smt. Manbhar Devi Wife of Late Shri Madan Lal Saini

Design Core Vs Income Tax Officer

Yogendra Dutt Sharma S/O Late Shri Devendra Dutt Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited