SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA versus PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 13-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA 
v. 
).-
PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA LTD. AND ANR. 
MARCH 13, 2002 
B 
[S.N. PHUKAN AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Voluntary retirement scheme-Withdrawal-Permissibility of-Retirement 
application by employee-Acceptance by management with condition-
Withdrawal of option of V.R.S. before effective date which is the date of actual 
release from service-However, management issued release order-Held, 
relationship of employer and employee continuous till the date of actual release 
of employee from service and not from the date of acceptance of the voluntary 
D retirement-Thus, since employee had locus poenitentiae to withdraw his 
propcsal for voluntary retirement before relationship of employer and employee 
comes to an end, management could not have refused to accept the withdrawal 
letter of the employee. 
,.L. 
Appellant-employee applied for voluntary retirement under the 
E Voluntary Retirement Scheme (YRS). Respondent-management accepted it 
with the condition that the release memo along with details particulars will 
follow. Thereafter, appellant sent two letters withdrawing his option for YRS 
before he was actually released from service but there was no response from 
the respondents. Later the respondents issued a inemo releasing appellant 
~· 
F from service. Aggrieved, appellant filed petition challenginfJ, the release order. 
Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court upheld the release 
order. 
In appeal before this Court appellant contended that in view of Gopal 
Chandra Mishra 's case*, the appellant was within his right to withdraw his 
G option for voluntary retirement even after its acceptance but before the actual 
date of release from the employment 
Respondents contended that from the date of acceptance of the letter 
of voluntary retirement by t.he respondent, the relationship of employer and 
employee came to an end and, therefore, the appellant ceased to be an 
H 
396 
..
'· 
S.M. SINHA v. PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA LTD. 
397 
employee of the respondent from that date. 
Allowing the appea~ the Court 
HELD: 1.1. There is no condition in the whole scheme that once an 
option to voluntary retire is exercised by an employee and the same is accepted 
A 
by the employer, the employee is not entitled to withdraw from voluntary B 
retirement. [399-FJ 
1.2. Appellant was paid his salaries etc. till his date of actual release 
and, therefore, the jural relationship of employee and employer between the 
appellant and the respondents did not come to an end on the date of 
acceptance of the voluntary retirement and the said relationship continued C 
till the date of actual release of the employee. The appellant admittedly sent 
two letters withdrawing his voluntary retirement before his actual date of 
release from service. Therefore, in view of the settled position of the law and 
the terms of the letter of acceptance, the appellant had locus poenitentiae to 
withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement before the relationship of 
employer and employee came to an end. Therefore, the respondent could not D 
have refused to accept the withdrawal letter of the appellant as it was sent 
before the jural relationship of employee and employer came to an end. 
[402-E-G] 
*Union of India and Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Mishra and Ors., [1978] 2 
sec 301, followed. 
E 
Bairam Gupta v. Union of India and Anr., [1987] Supp. SCC 228 and JN. 
Srivastava v. Union of India, (1998) 9 sec 559, relied on. 
Nand Keshwar Prasad v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd and 
Ors., [1998) 5 SCC 461; Raj Kumarv. Union of India, (1968) 3 SCR 857; Power F 
Finance Corporation Ltd v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, [1997) 4 SCC 280 and 
Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India and Anr., [2000] 5 SCC 
621, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2639 of 
2000. 
CJ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.99 of the Patna High Court 
in L.P.A. No. 57 of 1999 (R). 
S.B. Upadhyay, Pawan Upadhyay, Sujit Kr. Singh and Santosh Mishra 
for the Appellant. 
H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Deba Prasad Mukherjee and Ms. Nandini Gore for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has assailed 
the judgment dated 21-06-1999 passed by the Patna High Court in LPA No. 
B 57 of 1999 (R). By the impugned judgment the Division Bench affirmed the 
judgment of the learned Single

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