http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2

PETITIONER:

SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

PROJECT & DEVELOPMENT INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2000

BENCH:

S.S.Ahmad, R.C.Lahoti

JUDGMENT:

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted. In pursuance of

the scheme for voluntary retirement, the appellant submitted

an application dated 18.10.1995 seeking voluntary

retirement. The offer was accepted by the

respondent-management by their letter dated 30.7.1997. In

the letter, it was, inter alia, mentioned as under : "In

response to Circular No. PD/PERS/IR/60 (11)/374 dated

5.9.1995 and No. PD/PERS/IR/60 (111)/400 dated 12.10.1995

and your option for vol. retirement. Under the scheme

mentioned in the above circulars, Management has accepted

your option for Vol. Retirement. The release memo

alongwith detailed particulars will follow. Under the above

V.R. Scheme there is a provision for retention of quarter

for a period of 5 (five) years for which you are required to

enter into an agreement, as such please obtain the format

duly typed on non- judicial stamp paper from the office of

S.P.O. For completing the agreement paper, the name of your

father and quarter/bungalow No. is required, as such please

give the above information in writing to us for the above

purpose. The agreement paper may be returned duly signed by

you and your witness to the Sr. Pers. Officer. It may be

noted that you have to pay the charges of non-judicial paper

and demi paper." Since it was specifically stated in that

letter that release memo along with detailed particulars

will follow, the appellant continued in service till

26.9.1997 when he was relieved from the post in question.

In the meantime, the appellant had already submitted a

letter to the respondent on 7.8.1997 (followed by another

letter dated 24.9.1997) withdrawing the letter dated

18.10.1995 by which he had sought voluntary retirement. But

this letter was not given effect to by the

respondent-management. The appellant then filed a writ

petition in the High Court which was dismissed by the Single

Judge. The Writ Appeal filed against that judgment was

dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the

impugned judgment. The High Court did not accept the

contention of the appellant that he having withdrawn the

letter of voluntary retirement should be allowed to continue

in service. From the facts stated above, it would be seen

that though the option of voluntary retirement exercised by

the appellant by his letter dated 18.10.1995 was accepted by

the respondent-management by their letter dated 30.7.1997,

the appellant was not relieved from service and he was

allowed to continue in service till 26.9.1997, which, for

all practical purposes, would be the "effective date" as it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2

was on this date that he was relieved from service. In the

meantime, as pointed out above, the appellant had already

withdrawn the offer of voluntary retirement vide his letter

dated 7.8.1997. The question which, therefore, arises in

this appeal is whether it is open to a person having

exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdraw the

said offer after its acceptance but before it is made

effective. The question is squarely answered by the three

decisions, namely, Balram Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr.

1987 (Supp.) SCC 228; J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India

& Anr. (1998) 9 SCC 559 and Power Finance Corporation Ltd.

vs. Pramod Kumar Bhatia (1997) 4 SCC 280, in which it was

held that the resignation, in spite of its acceptance, can

be withdrawn before the "effective date". That being so,

the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High

Court is set aside with the direction that the appellant

shall be allowed to continue in service with all

consequential benefits. There will, however, be no order as

to costs.