FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus RAMESH KUMAR

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 940 · Decided: 08-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
)....... 
v. 
' 
RAMESH KUMAR 
AUGUST 8, 2007 
B 
[A.K.MATHURANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.] 
Service Law: 
~ 
Food Corporation of India-Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002-
c Clause VJII(d)-Employee applying for voluntary retirement on 13.9.2004, 
but revoking the offer and withdrawing the same on 27.9.2004-Department 
~ 
accepting offer of voluntary retirement by order dated 9. I 1.2004-High Court 
quashing the order of Department-Held: the view taken by High Court is 
correct-The revocation was made by the incumbent on 27.9.2004 and his 
D offer of retirement cannot be acted upon as he has revoked it before the 
Corporation could act upon it. 
~ 
State Bank of Patia/a v. Ramesh Chandra Kanoji & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 
y 
651, relied on. 
E 
Bank of India & Ors. v. O.P. Swarnakar & Anr., (2003) 2 SCC 721, 
distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1611 of2006. 
From the Judgment dated 6.9.2005 of the High Court of Punjab and 
F Haryana at Chandigarh in W.P. No. 6590 of 2005. 
... 
WITH 
~ 
C.A. Nos. 1612/2006 and 3458/2006. 
G 
Indra Sawhney for the Appellants. 
M.C. Dhingra, M.A. Chinnasamy, Varinder Kumar Sharma for the 
Respondent. 
y 
H 
940 
I 
FOOD CORPN. OF INDIA v. RAMESH KUMAR 
941 
---\ 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
A 
-I 
ORDER 
Heard learned counsel for the parties in all these appeals. All the three 
cases involve similar question of law therefore, we dispose them of by the 
' 
common order. The facts given in the case of C.A.No.1611 /2006 are taken into B 
consideration. 
The respondent an employee of the Food Corporation of India applied 
-'f 
on 13.9.2006 for voluntary retirement in pursuance of the scheme of Voluntary 
Retirement floated by them on 29.6.2002. He revoked his offer and has 
withdrawn the same on 27.9.2004 but despite withdrawal, his offer for voluntary c 
retirement was accepted on 9.11.2004. This order ofretirement dated 9.11.2004 
-I 
was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition before the Division 
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Division Bench relying 
upon the earlier judgment given under Gurcharan Singh v. FCJ allowed the 
respondent's request and quashed the order dated 9 .11.2004. 
D 
Hence the present appeal by the Food Corporation of India. 
~, 
y 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
The short question before us is when the applicant has made the application 
for withdrawal before it could be accepted, can the Food Corporation of India E 
still enforce the offer of voluntary retirement upon the incumbent. The learned 
counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per Clause VIII(d) of the terms 
of the scheme which clearly stipulates that the incumbent once makes a 
request for voluntary retirement, he will be prevented from withdrawing the 
same that means that once he has given offer for voluntary retirement and 
when the withdrawal is totally prevented he has no right to withdraw his offer . F 
• 
For better appreciation of the Clause VIIJ(d), It reads as under: 
). 
"Once an employee submits his application for voluntary retirement 
under this scheme to the competent authority, it shall be treated as 
final and it is not open to the employee to withdraw the same. The 
G 
competent authority within notice period (3 months) shall take a 
decision to accept or reject the request and shall communicate the 
same to the official concerned." 
~· 
Learned counsel submitted that in view of this once the respondent has 
given an offer for voluntary retirement on 13.9.2004, he cannot revoke the H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
same on 27.9.2004 and in that support learned counsel invited our attention 
to the decision of this Court in [2003] 2 SCC 721 Bank of India & Ors. v. OP. 
Swarnakar & Anr. As against this learned counsel for respondent invited our 
attention to the decision in State Bank of Patiala v. Ramesh Chandra Kanoji 
& Ors., reported in [2004] 2 SCC 651. Both these decisions are of three Judges 
Bench and in the earifor decision given in the case of O.P. Swarnakar (supra) 
Hon'ble Justice Sinha was a party and he was also a party in the subsequent 
decision in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. Ramesh Chandra Kanoji 
(Supra). We have gone through both the decisions cited by the learned 
counsel for the parties. In the case of OP. Swarnakar (supra), two schemes 
were taken into consideration; namely, one of the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.