Karnataka Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. vs Sri V. Nijananda, Karnataka State Breweries Corporation Limited and The State of Karnataka

K.L. Manjunath

The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10038 of 2006 dated 27th September 2006. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder:

The first respondent was appointed in the year 1989 by the appellant-Corporation as an Assistant. He was sent on deputation to the Karnataka State Breweries Corporation Limited. In the meanwhile, a scheme was introduced granting liberty to the employees to opt for Voluntary Retirement. Accordingly, the first respondent opted to retire voluntarily through his representation dated 19th January 2004. When his application was pending consideration, he submitted another representation dated 21st March 2005 withdrawing his earlier representation opting voluntary retirement. His representation, opting to retire under voluntary retirement scheme, was accepted on 31st August 2005 and he was relieved from his duties.

Contending that the acceptance of the voluntary retirement application on 31st August 2005 is illegal, in view of his withdrawal of the same by representation dated 21st March 2005, a writ petition was filed by the appellant. The writ petition was not contested by the appellant. In that circumstance, the learned Single Judge heard the matter, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order accepting the voluntary retirement and directed the appellant to continue the services of the respondent by providing all consequential benefits within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. This order is called in question in this appeal.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant, Learned Counsel for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate. The main contention of the appellant before us is that immediately after relieving the respondent from the services, the ex-gratia and other benefits were calculated and paid to the appellant through an account payee cheque on 16th December 2005. It is submitted that the respondent has also encashed the cheque and eight months thereafter, the writ petition was filed. The fact that the respondent has encashed the cheque, was not brought to the notice of the learnedingle Judge by the respondent. In that circumstance, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. But, the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Punjab and Sind Bank and Another Vs. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa and Another, The Learned Counsel for the respondent is not disputing the receipt of payment from the appellant and encashment of the same by the respondent. If that be so, the order of the ieaxned Single Judge has to be set aside only on this ground. We are also of the view that had the first respondent brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge about the receipt of the monetary benefits under the voluntary retirement scheme and encashing the same, we are sure, the learned Single Judge would not have allowed the writ petition. In the circumstance, we are of the view that following the ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, we have to allow this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10038 of 2006 dated 27TH September 2006, is hereby quashed. Consequentially, the writ petition filed by the first respondent is rejected.