LexH.P.M.C. versus SHRI SUMAN BEHARI SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\
H.P.M.C.
v.
SHRI SUMAN BEHAR! SHARMA
APRIL 2, 1996
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANAVATI, J.1.J
Service Law-En1ployee seeking volunta1y retirenJent reque:iling waiver
of mandalmy notice period-Vnauthmised abse1Zce thereafte1"-f!eld, 1ight
co1Zfe1Ted Oil the employee is /IOI the 1ight to retire but a 1ight lo ask for
A
B
;.
retirement-Request by the employee a11d convspo11di11g acceptance by the C
eniployer is
necessa~T71ere can not be auton1atic retirenient on expily of
period of notice time-Cltarge-sheeted for misco11duct and unauthorised ab-
se1ZCl>-{)pe11 to the employer to proceed with the p!Vposed e1Zquily-Himachal
Pradesh H01ticultural Produce Marketi11g and Processing C01poratio11 Ltd.
Employees Service Bye-Laws-~lause 3.8.
D
The respondent, an employee of the appellant Corporation applied
for a long leave on 1.5.1990, and the same was granted till 30.11.1990. On
26.11.1990 he applied for voluntary retirement from 30.11.1990 waiving
three months notice period. And he remained absent thereafter.
Against his unauthorised absence from 1.12.1990 a chargesheet was
issued to him on 27.8.1992 and on 18.9.1992 another chargesheet for his
acts of misconduct was issued.
E
Aggrieved by the memos, the respondent approached the Himachal
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. He also challenged the order dated F
28.6.1991 whereby an amount of Rs. 28,214 was sought to be recovered from
him.
The Tribunal quashed the memos and also the recovery order hold-
ing that the appellant Corporation had failed to exercise its option of G
accepting or rejecting the request of the employee within three months
from the date of the notice for premature retirement as provided under
clause 3.8 of Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and
Processing Corporation Ltd. Employees Service Bye-Laws.
In this appeal, the appellant corporation contended that the appel- H
1069
1070
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1996) 3 S.C.R.
A (ant has to exercise its option of accepting or rejecting the request of the
employee within three months from the date of the notice for premature
retirement.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
B
HELD : 1.1. Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and
Processing Corporation Ltd. Employees Service Bye-Law No. 3.8 has to be
read as a whole. Para 2 thereof confers a right on the employee to request
for voluntary retirement on completion of 25 years of service or on attaining
the age of SO years, but his desire would materialise only if he is permitted
)
C to retire and not otherwise. Ordinarily, in a matter like this an employee
~
who has put in less number of years of service would not be on a better
footing than the employee who has put in longer Service. It could not have
been the intention of the role-making authority while framing para S of the
Bye-Law to confer on such an employee a better and larger right to retire
after giving three months notice in writing. The words "seek retirement" in
D para S indicate that the right which is conferred by it is not the right to
retire but a right to ask for retirement. The word "seek" implies a re11uest
by the employee and corresponding acceptance or permission by the
employer. Therefore, there cannot be automatic retirement or snapping of
service relationship on expiry of three months period.
E
F
G
[1071-G-H, 1074-G-H, 1075-A-B)
1.2. When a right is conferred on the employee to retire by giving three
months notice, the question of acceptance of such a request would not arise
provided all the conditions prescribed by the role are satisfied. [1073-B-CJ
......___.
Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam and Others, (1977) SW
622; Union of India v. Harendrala/ Bhattacharya, (1983) SW 418 and
Ramachandra v. The State of A.P., (1984) SW 52, relied on.
2.1. The Tribunal was wrong in holding that under para S of the
Bye-laws .the employee has a right to retire after giving three months notice
and the respondent stood retired with effect from February 26, 1991 on
expiry of three months notice period as the respondent's request for
retirement was not rejected within that period. [1075-H, 1076-A]
2.2. It will be open to the appellant corporation to proceed further
with the proposed enquiry if it is otherwise expedient and permissible to
H do so. [1076-A-B]
i
•
H.P.M.C. v. S.B. SHARMA (NANAVATI, J.]
1071
CIVIL APPEAL LATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4972 of A
1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.12.93Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.