BHARATKUMAR CHANDRAVADAV DAVE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by the appellant - original petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3rd August 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 996 of 2003 filed by the petitioner by virtue of which he has sought a direction that the voluntary retirement offer, as made by him has wrongly been accepted by respondent No. 2 - Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') because, before his voluntary retirement offer could actually come into operation, he had withdrawn his offer.

(2.) THE judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the respondents floated a scheme for voluntary retirement for the employees who are willing to give up their position as employees of it. The scheme in question was floated vide letter dated 14th November 2002. This scheme was to remain in operation till 4th January 2003. Its currency was extended up to 20th January 2003. Pursuant to the aforesaid scheme the appellant made an offer to the respondent - Corporation to voluntarily retire him on 4th January 2003, the date on which the scheme was to expire, but its currency was extended till 20th January 2003. The extension came to be made on 10th January 2003. The case of the petitioner that on 17th January 2003 he wrote a letter to the respondent No. 2 - Corporation that he wants to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. Though the application is dated 17th January 2003, it was received by the Corporation on 18th January 2003. On 27th January 2003 an office order was passed by the respondent -Corporation informing the petitioner that his application for voluntary retirement is accepted with effect from 7th February 2003. By this, the request of the petitioner for withdrawal of the offer made by him for voluntary retirement was rejected. Thus, the petitioner moved aforesaid Special Civil Application.

(3.) AFTER considering the case of the petitioner, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition filed by the petitioner by observing that once the offer having been made and was accepted, the petitioner could not have been permitted to withdraw the same in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. Romesh Chander Kanoji and Ors, 2004 AIR(SC) 2016. Being aggrieved by such decision, the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed before us. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the learned Single Judge was not right in holding that in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra) the Supreme Court has laid down a law in terms not permitting the petitioner to withdraw the application once made. According to the learned Counsel, the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra) was in the background that the scheme had come to an end and after closure of the scheme the Court has said that it would not be possible for permitting the withdrawal of the application made once. Therefore, in that background, the law came to be laid down in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra), which was not stated in the case that law as laid down in the case of Bank of India v. O.P. Swarankara, 2003 AIR(SC) 858 was not a good law. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra) has applied the case of O.P. Swarankara (supra). According to the learned Counsel, if the ratio, as laid down in the case of O.P. Swarankara (supra) is perused, then it will be seen that it is not the withdrawal simplicitor which is relevant in the cases where voluntary schemes are to be considered. It has to be seen in conjunction with other factors as well as has been noticed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of O.P. Swarankara(supra) and he has placed reliance on that portion of the judgment wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quoted the ratio laid down in the case of Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India Ltd.,2002 5 SCC 621 and has placed reliance on following paragraphs of that judgment: