POONAM GARG Vs. IFCI VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the respondent no.1 rejecting the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal of her notice of voluntary retirement from service dated 07.06.2019. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to permit her to continue in service till her superannuation.

(2.) The petitioner, who joined the services of respondent no.1/IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. ("the Company" for short) on 06.01.1995 as Staff Officer, earned promotions over time based on her performance and was finally promoted as General Manager (Human Resources) w.e.f. 01.04.2015 at which post she continues to serve. After 24 years of service at the Company, the petitioner offered to voluntarily retire by way of her notice dated 07.06.2019 addressed to the respondent no.3/Managing Director of the Company, in accordance with the IFCI Venture Capital Funds Limited Staff Regulations, 2019 ("Regulations" for short), and requested to be relieved from service w.e.f. 07.09.2019. At this stage, it may be noted that as the respondent No.1 is a public limited company through a subsidiary of IFCI Ltd., a Govt. of India undertaking, its regulations are not statutory but have been framed in pursuance to the Memorandum of Association of the Company.

(3.) Within six days of submitting her notice, on 13.06.2019, the petitioner sought to withdraw her request for voluntary retirement from the Company while expressing her willingness, in the interest of the organisation, to accept any role/responsibility assigned to her by the Company. In the meanwhile, as the petitioner had requested to be relieved from service only w.e.f. 07.09.2019, she continued to discharge her duties without any interference. On 04.07.2019 however, the Company issued the impugned order to the petitioner informing her that while her request for voluntary retirement had been accepted by the Competent Authority, her letter dated 13.06.2019 seeking withdrawal of her request for voluntary retirement had not been considered favourably and that, resultantly, she would be relieved from service on 06.09.2019. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no.2/Chairman of the Company seeking his intervention in the matter, but received no reply thereto.