R SURYA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially the petitioner joined the services of the third respondent-Board, namely, the Andhra Pradesh State Social Welfare Board, as Personal Assistant to the Chairperson in the year 1964. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Secretary of the third respondent-Board in the year 1966 and thereafterwards she was functioning as Secretary of the Board, Under the Regulations governing the services of the petitioner, she had to retire from the services on attaining the age of 58 years. In other words, in the normal course, she would have been retired with effect from 31-12-1997.

(2.) On 29-3-1996, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Chairperson of thethird respondent-Board expressing her desire to retire voluntarily with effect from 31-10-1996 due to certain domestic constraints and requesting the Chairperson to permit her to do so. It appears that the proposal of the petitioner to retire voluntarily was forwarded to the second respondent, namely, the Central Social Welfare Board, and the second respondent-Board by its proceedings dated 25-6-1996 permitted the petitioner to retire with effect from 31-10-1996 A.N. as could be seen from the letter of the Chairman dated 12-9-1996 issued to the petitioner and produced at page 2 of the material papers. On 24-10-1996, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Chairman of the third respondent-Board expressing her willingness to continue in the service for some more time as desired by the Chairman. On 24-10-1996 itself, the Chairman addressed a letter to the Executive Director of the second respondent-Board. In the said letter, there is a reference to the telephonic discussion the Chairman of the third respondent had with the Executive Director of the second respondent-Board and seeking necessary action in the matter by FAX. On 31-10-1996, the Joint Director (SBA) of the second respondent-Board issued office order to the effect that the competent authority of the second respondent- Board has agreed for the retention of the services of the petitioner as the Secretary of the third respondent-Board. The order also declares that the earlier office order, thereby meaning the Office Order dated 25-6-1996, permitting the petitioner to retire voluntarily w.e.f. 31-10-1996 A.M. is withdrawn with immediate effect. On 31-10-1996, the Chairperson of the second respondent- Board also issued office order informing the petitioner that the competent authority has agreed for the retention of her services as Secretary of the third respondent Board. This office order also declares that the earlier order passed by the second respondent-Board according permission for voluntary retirement to the petitioner is withdrawn with immediate effect. In the same office order the petitioner is directed to continue as Secretary of the State Board until further orders. In the meanwhile, it appears that on the ground that the petitioner would retirevoluntarily with effect from31-10-1996, her pensionary benefits were processed and certified. After the subsequent developments noted above, the Director of Local Audits wrote a letter on 25-2-1997 to the Chairperson of the third respondent-Board informing the latter that the pensionary benefits already certified in the earlier communications dated 25-11-1996 and 12-2-1997 in respect of the petitioner were cancelled. When the matter stood thus, the Chairperson of the third respondent-Board issued the impugned proceeding dated 30-8-1997. The proceedings read:

(3.) The validity of this proceeding is called in question in this writ petition.