AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L.N. Reddy, J.—The appellants are respondents in W.P. No. 3707 of 2000. They filed this Writ Appeal feeling aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge.
The respondent herein was working as Manager (Electrical) in the appellants'' organization. On 27.08.1998, he submitted a letter to the Chairman and Managing Director stating that due to his personal reasons, he intends to take voluntary retirement with effect from 30.06.1999 under Rule 35(a) of Midhani Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules (for short ''the Rules''). Acting upon that, the appellants addressed a letter dated 21.01.1999 acceding to the request of the respondent, to retire him with effect from 30.06.1999.
The respondent addressed letter dated 26.05.1999 through which he requested the appellants to retire him from service with effect from 31.12.1999, instead of 30.06.1999. Even that was acceded to through communication dated 13.07.1999. On 03.12.1999, the respondent addressed a letter to the appellants stating that he intends to continue in service till 30.11.2000. The appellants informed the respondent through communication dated 02-02-2000, that his case was examined and considered with reference to Rule 35(a) of the Rules and it was decided to retire him on completion of 58 years service. Three months pay and allowances, in lieu of three month''s notice was paid through cheque dated 02.02.2000. The said order was challenged by the respondent by filing Writ Petition.
He pleaded that there was absolutely no basis for invoking Rule 35(a) of the Rules in his case and that though his request for Voluntary Retirement was acceded to, he continued beyond 31.12.1999; and invoking Rule 35(a) of the Rules at that stage, was unwarranted. The appellants filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition through order dated 01.08.2006. Hence, this Writ Appeal.
Heard Sri M. Dilip Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent.
It is not in dispute that the respondent submitted an application seeking retirement, before he attained the age of superannuation. It was not even alleged that the letter dated 27-08-1998 was submitted by the respondent under any coercion or duress. It is important to note that though the letter was submitted on 27-08-1998, he intended to retire eight months thereafter. The request was acceded to in January 1999. Few days before the retirement was to become operational, the respondent wanted to postpone the effective date by six months. Though the appellants would have been justified in not acceding that request, they accommodated the respondent and permitted him to retire with effect from 31-12-1999. The wavering nature of the respondent became further reinforced, when he addressed letter on 03-12-1999 with a request to permit him to retire about one year thereafter.
The appellants wanted to give a quietus to the issue, and they examined the matter with reference to Rule 35(a) of the Rules. The Rule has two facets: It enables the management to retire an employee at the age of 55 years, if it is found that it is not in the interest of the organization to continue him beyond that age. Secondly, it provides for retirement of an employee on medical grounds. Accordingly an order was passed on 02-02-2000, retiring the respondent from service.
The respondent could have taken exception to the impugned order dated 02-02-2000, if only Rule 35(a) was invoked against his wishes. A perusal of the representation dated 27-08-1998, submitted by him, discloses that he claimed the relief only in terms of Rule 35(a). In none of the subsequent representations, he wanted to dissociate his representation, with Rule 35(a). Once the respondent himself invoked Rule 35(a), he cannot turn around and plead that it cannot be invoked against him. Principle of estoppel and host of other concepts come into play.
The learned single Judge did not take these important aspects into account, and allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order dated 02-02-2000. We find it difficult to sustain the order passed by the learned single Judge.
The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Writ Appeal shall stand disposed of.