P. LAL versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 846 · Decided: 05-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
P. LAL 
l'. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 5, 2003 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. VARI A VA, JJ.] 
Sen:ice Law: 
Voluntary retirement-Withdrawal of-When permissible-Held: 
Employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement from service 
C before the effective date-Effective date would be the date when retirement 
takes effect-On facts, the moment employer accepted notice of voluntary 
retirement, retirement became effective and master-servant relationship 
severed-Further there was no need to communicate the acceptance to employee 
since he had by his own conduct abandoned the services by which severance 
D of master se1,,ant relationship took place immediately on account of notice 
thus, employee could not withdraw his request for volunt01y retirement-All 
India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1985-Rule 16 (2) & 16 (2A). 
Respondent No.3-IPS officer applied for voluntary retirement with 
immediate effect on 5.5.1993 and deposited money in lieu of three months 
E notice. Thereafter he went abroad without waiting for acceptance of his 
application. On 2.3.1995 Government of India permitted respondent No.3 
to retire from services with effect from May, 1993. The said order was 
forwarded to him; however it was received back undelivered. 
Subsequently, on 18.4.1995 respondent No.3 withdrew his request for 
F 
voluntary retirement. Government of India accepted the request. Appellant 
then challenged the re-induction of respondent No.3 into service as his 
seniority in the cadre gets affected. Tribunal held that respondent No.3 
having left without waiting for his application to be sanctioned and having 
taken up employment abroad amounted to the severance of the master 
servant relationship which attained finality, thus Government of India had 
G no jurisdiction to accept his request of withdrawal ofvoluntary retirement. 
Aggrieved respondent No.3 and Government of India filed writ petitions. 
High Court held that as the order permitting respondent No.3 to retire 
from services was not communicated to respondent No.3, the master. 
servant relationship continued; thus, decision of the Government of India 
to allow respondent No.3 to withdraw the request for not retiring is not 
H 
846 
P. LAL v. U.0.1. 
847 
_illegal or vitiated and allowed the petitions. Hence the present appeal. 
A 
Respondent No.3 contended that a public servant has a right to 
withdraw his request for voluntary retirement at any time until the 
retirement becomes effective; that the relationship of master and servant 
does not come to an end merely because the employee conducts himself 
in a manner which gives the employer a right to bring about a severance B 
unless the employer takes some positive action; that the relationship of 
master and servant does not come to an end unless and until there is 
effective communication of the order accepting the request for voluntary 
retirement; that a termination would take place automatically on the 
happening of a particular situation, for example absence from office, C 
abandonment of service etc. only if there is a specific rule which so 
provides and in the absence of such a rule termination of service does not 
take place automatically; and that under sub-rule (2A) of Rule 16 of the 
All India services (Death cum Retirement) Rules, 1958 the notice for 
voluntary retirement would not take effect until it was accepted by the 
Central Government; that acceptance could only take place if there was D 
effective communication of the acceptance; that the Government's Order 
accepting the request for voluntary retirement, had not been 
communicated to respondent No.3, thus, respondent No.3 was, therefore, 
entitled to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement; that the High 
Court was right in holding that the relationship of master and servant had E 
continued; that even according to the Government of India the relationship 
of master and servant had not been terminated; that respondent No.3's 
stay abroad and work with a foreign firm were part of an assignment given 
to him; and that an IPS officer is appointed by the President of India which 
is notified in the official gazette and thus the removal can only be 
accomplished in a similar manner, by a Presidential Order duly notified F 
in the official gazatte. 
Appellant contended that the conduct of respondent No.3 in leaving 
India without waiting for the Government to accept his request for 
voluntary retirement and th

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