UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus WING COMMANDER T. PARTHASARATHY

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 10-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
WING COMMANDER T. PARTHASARATHY 
NOVEMBER I 0, 2000 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Pre-mature retirement-Application for premature retirement by 
employee intending to take effect from a year thereafter-Also submitted a C 
certificate stating that he was aware of the policy of non-acceptance of 
application seeking withdrawal of his application for pre-mature retirement-
Four months thereafter, he moved an application seeking withdrawal of his 
application/or pre-mature retirement-The very next day he was served wfth 
a communication retiring him prematurely and rejecting his withdrawal D 
application-Challenged in a writ petition which was allowed by Single 
Judge-Appeal before Division Bench dismissed-On appeal, Held: No 
statutory rules or provisions of any Act existed denying the right of seeking 
withdrawal of application for premature retirement-As the premature 
retirement was to take effect long after moving of application seeking 
withdrawal of premature retirement, there was no cessation of master and E 
servant relationship-Employee's furnishing a certificate declaring that he 
was aware of the policy of non-acceptance of cancellation/withdrawal of 
application seeking premature retirement cannot stand in the way. 
The respondent, a Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force submitted F 
an application dated 21-07-1985 praying for pre-mature retirement from 
service with effect from 31-08-1986 with 6 months leave preparatory to 
retirement said to be due to him with the admissible full non-effective benefits. 
The reasons for the pre-mature retirement were the continued illness of his 
wife and other family commitments and responsibilities. Four months Jater 
when the matter was under process before the concerned authorities, the G 
respondent moved an amendment to his earlier application stating that the 
actual date of his release could be decided taking into account the pensionary ' 
recommendations of the IVth Pay Commission Report which was expected to 
come in November, 1985. On 19-02-1986, the respondent on being able to 
surmount the health problems of his wife and having sorted out the family H 
531 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A problems, submitted an application for withdrawal of his earlier application 
seeking pre-mature retirement. Later the respondent received a 
communication dated 06-03-1986 that AIR HQ, vide their letter dated 
20-02-1986 had intima~ed that the respondent was to prematurely retire with 
effect from 03-08-1986. Respondent's application for withdrawal of pre-
B mature retirement application was rejected on the ground that the HQ did 
not accede requests for such cancellation on the ground that the pre-mature 
retirement application had already been approved by RRM and also the 
respondent had given a certificate stating that he was aware that his application 
for such cancellation would not be accepted. Further the respondent's 
application even for the change in date of retirement was also rejected. The 
C order of pre-mature retirement with effect from 31-08-1986 was challenged 
by the respondent in a writ petition which was allowed. Appeal preferred before 
Division Bench of the High Court was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant Union of India contended that under the policy regarding 
premature retirement there was no scope for withdrawing the application 
D seeking pre-mature retirement It was also contended that the respondent was 
well aware of the non-acceptance of his subsequent application seeking 
withdrawal and had filed a requisite certificate to that effect 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD. 1. In the present case, nothing in the form of any statutory rules 
F 
or any provision ofany Act has been brought to notice which could be said to 
impede or deny the right of withdrawal. On the other hand, not only the 
acceptance of request by the Headquarters was said to have been made only 
on 20-02-1986, a day after the respondent withdrew his request for pre-mature 
retirement but even such acceptance in this case was to be effective from a 
future date namely 31-08-1986. Consequently, it could not be legitimately 
contended by the appellants that there was any cessation of the relationship 
of master and servant between the Department and the respondent at any rate 
before 31-08-1986. While that be the position inevitably the respondent had 
a right and was en

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