PADUBIDRI DAMODAR SHENOY versus INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 10-09-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 14 (ADDL.) s.c:R. 356 
PADUBIDRI DAMODAR SHENOY 
v. 
INDIAN AIRLINES LTD. AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6186 of 2009) 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Service Law -
Voluntary Retirement -
Service 
Regulations for Employees (other than those in the Flying 
C Crew and those in the Aircraft Engineering Departments) -
Regulation 12(b) - _Interpretation and construction of the 
Regulation and the proviso appended thereto - Held: The 
expression "shall be subject to approval" used in proviso 
appended to Regulation 12 clearly indicates that voluntary 
J 
D retirement applied by employees covered by clause (b) is 
~­
effective only upon approval by the competent authority -
There is nothing to indicate in Regulation 12 that if employer 
_ decides to withhold approval of voluntary retirement, such 
refusal of approval must be communicated to the employee 
E du_ring period of notice - Since on facts, approval was not 
- granted, voluntary retirement of the employee never came into 
effect. 
Words and Phrases: 
F 
"shall be subject to approval" - "shall" and "subject to" -
Meaning and effect of. 
On 30th September, 2005, the appellant, in terms of 
Regulation 12 of the Service Regulations for Employees 
G (other than those in the Flying Crew and those in the 
Aircraft Engineering Departments), gave a notice of his 
intention to voluntarily retire from service on completion 
of three months from the date of the notice. At the 
relevant time, the appellant had completed 29 years of. 
continuous service. 
H 
356 
• 
.J._ 
j-
,,.. 
PADUBIDRI DAMODAR SHENOY v. INDIAN AIRLINES 
357 
LTD. AND ANR. 
i 
The appellant purportedly sent a reminder to the 
A 
authorities on December 16, 2005 and when he did not 
receive any reply, he sent another letter dated June 8, 
2006 informing the respondents that he would cease to 
be an employee of the respondent no.1 after close of the 
working hours on June 30, 2006. Again on July 1, 2006, 
B 
the appellant purportedly informed the respondent no.1 
and the concerned authority that in terms of notice dated 
~ 
September 30, 2005 he has ceased to be an employee of 
.> 
the respondent no.1 in terms of Regulation 12(b) of the 
Service Regulations and requested the respondents to c 
. ., 
release and pay all his legal dues including the provident 
fund and gratuity from July 1, 2006. 
Purportedly by letter dated July 31, 2006, the 
' 
appellant was informed that his application for voluntary 
_) 
retirement has been forwarded to the Headquarters for D 
decision and he was advised to report for duty 
immediately, failing which he was informed that a 
disciplinary action would be taken against him. The -
appellant sent reply reiterating his stand and further 
informing, the respondents that he had ceased to be the 
E 
employee of the respondents from July 1, 2006 and, 
• 
therefore, there was no question of his reporting for duty. 
' 
;. 
-
The appellant then filed a writ petition. During 
pendency of the writ petition, the appellant received a 
F 
communication dated September 15, 2006 from the 
respondents that his request for voluntary retirement 
from service has not been acceded to by the competent 
authority. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed by 
the High 'Court. The appellant filed fresh writ petition 
G 
.... 
before the High Court which too was dismissed . 
/ 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that 
· Regulation 12 vests the employees covered thereby with 
a right to voluntarily retire after giving three months 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A notice, namely, those who have attained the age of 55 
1 
years and also those who have completed 20 years of 
continuous service anct both these categories form one 
class and that the proviso appended to Regulation 12 
only empowers the competent authority to withhold 
B approval before the notice period is over. 
Per contra, the Respondent contended that the notice 
dated 30th September, 2005 given by the appellant to the 
.. 
employer under Regulation 12(b) expiring on 31st 
....( 
c December, 2005 did not become effective and rather 
remained inoperative since the appellant continued to 
,.., 
attend his duties not only until the expiry of notice period 
but thereafter as well upto June 30, 2006; that the proviso 
to Regulation 12-expressly· mandates the approval of the 
D 
competent authority or, in other words, approval of the 
competent authority is a conditio

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