Moghjibhai B. Patel vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another

D.H. Waghela, J.—The Appellant - original Petitioner has invoked Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to challenge the order dated 16.07.2004 of learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby his petition was dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 2,500/-.

The grievance of the Petitioner, in effect was that he was wrongly denied withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement and the main issue of fact was that whether the Appellant had withdrawn his application for special voluntary retirement before his application was accepted and acted upon. The Appellant had relied upon his letter dated 25.03.2003 which was alleged to have been sent under Certificate of Posting, and again relied upon it to submit that the Respondent could not have legally accepted the proposal after its withdrawal was communicated in writing. Learned Single Judge has clearly held that in absence of any evidence to the contrary, that communication dated 25.03.2003 appear to be an after-thought and a concocted document. In view of the repeated agitation on the same issue of fact, this Court (Coram:Hon''ble Mr. Justice Bhagwati Prasad, as His Lordship then was and Hon''ble Mr. Justice Bankim N. Mehta) appears to have verified the facts pursuant to which following order dated 19.02.2010 was made herein:

An affidavit was filed on behalf of the Appellant that two employees, namely Shri J.D. Joshi, Branch Manager, and Shri C.S. Jadav, Record Clerk, have admitted before him that the document in question, i.e. his withdrawal from VRS, is on record of the office of the Oriental Insurance Company, Palanpur Branch. Both the officers were called in the Court. They are present in the Court. They denied of having admitted the existence of application before the Appellant. Consequence of the affidavit and their denial will be seen at the time of hearing of the appeal.

Record was also brought to our notice by learned Counsel of the Oriental Insurance Company. The record, as produced, does not contain the document in question.

All these facts will be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal.

After hearing learned Senior Counsel Mr. K. B. Pujara at length, it was clear that the Respondent did not receive the so-called communication dated 25.03.2003 and the Appellant is by now already retired and has already received the benefits under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme. We do not find any reason to take a view different from the view taken by learned Single Judge. In fact, the above order has buttressed the finding that the Respondent had not received any communication dated 25.03.2003 as alleged and in fact, such communication addressed to the Branch Manager, even if received, could not have been effective as held by learned Single Judge.

In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the appeal and hence, it is dismissed with no further order as to costs.

Civil Application does not survive in view of the above order and stands disposed accordingly.