SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA versus PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA AND ANR

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 13-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

J 
I 
,. 
SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA 
A 
v. 
PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA AND ANR 
APRIL 13, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Voluntary Retirement-Effective date-Option exercised 
by an employee accepted by management-However he was not relieved-
Whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement 
to withdraw the offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective-Held, 
C 
Yes-Resignation, inspite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the 
effective date-Effective date is the date when the employee is relieved from 
service. 
The appellant submitted an application seeking voluntary retire-
ment under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme. The offer was accepted by 
D 
the respondent-management but the appellant was not relieved from 
service and be was allowed to continue in service till 26.9.1997 when he 
was relieved from the post. However, the appellant submitted a letter on 
7.8.1997 withdrawing the offer of voluntary retirement which was not 
given effect to by the respondent-management. The appellant filed a writ 
E 
petition which was dismissed. The Writ appeal filed against that judg-
ment was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. In this 
appeal, filed against the judgment of the High Court, the question raised 
is whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary 
retirement to withdraw the offer after its acceptance but before it is made 
F 
effective. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : The resignation, inspite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn 
before the 'effective date'. In the instant case though the option of volun-
tary retirement exercised by the appellant was accepted by the respondent-
management on 30. 7.1997, the appellant was not relieved from service and 
be was allowed to continue service till 26.9.1997, which, for all practical 
purpose, would be the 'effective date' as it was on this date that he was 
relieved from service. In the meantime, the appellant had already with· 
drawn the offer of voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 7.8.1997. The 
9 
G 
H 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
appellant shall be allowed to continue in service with all consequential 
benefits. [ 110-G] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Bairam Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., (1987) Supp. SCC 228; J.N. 
Srivastava v. Union of India & Anr., (1998) 9 SCC 559 and Power Finance 
Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, [ 1997) 4 SCC 280, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2639 of 2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.99 of the Patna High Court 
in LP.A. No. 57 of 1999 (R). 
S.B. Upadhyay for the Appellant. 
S.K. Sinha for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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/IRJ60 (11)/374 dated 5.9.1995 
and No. PD/PERS/IRJ60 (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 pa11iculars 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.''. 
~ 
.
. ...4.. 
)( 
...,.... 
S.M. SINHA v. PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 
11 
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) withdraw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.