RUKSHANA BEGUM SIDDIQUE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by communications dated 2. 6. 2006 and 3. 6. 2006 whereby she has been informed that her application seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 30. 4. 2006 has been accepted and consequently she has been voluntarily retired.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, before this Court, is that the petitioner, who at the relevant time was working as an Assistant Teacher and was posted at Govt. Boys Middle School (Urdu), Gohalpur, submitted an application on 29. 3. 2006 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 30. 4. 2006. Thereafter the petitioner was directed by the; authorities to submit the application in the prescribed Statutory form 28 under the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Rules') and, accordingly, the petitioner by Annexure P-2 submitted her application for voluntary retirement in the prescribed form under the Service Rules stating therein that she desires to retire from Government Service with effect from 30. 4. 2006 under Rule 42 (l) (a) of the Service Rules. It is stated that thereafter on 16. 5. 2006 an order was issued by the Block Resource Coordinator, Jabalpur sending the petitioner for training and this led to a change of mind on the part of the petitioner prompting her to file an application on 18. 5. 2006 seeking withdrawal of her voluntary retirement. It is stated that respondent no. 2 totally ignored the application seeking withdrawal of voluntary retirement of the petitioner and on 27. 5. 2006 and 1. 6. 2006 sought submission of the proposal for voluntary retirement of the petitioner from the Principal of the petitioner's school and thereafter communicated the impugned order dated 3. 6. 2006 to the petitioner to the effect that her voluntary retirement had been accepted with effect from 30. 4. 2006 and that she should consider herself to have been deemed to be relieved from service with effect from that date.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the authority sends the petitioner for training, subsequent to the lapse of the period of notice mentioned in her notice for voluntary retirement, by order dated 16. 5. 2006, the relationship of employer and employee, between the petitioner and the respondent, continued and in such circumstances the respondent no. 2 could not have accepted the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement on 30. 4. 2006 specifically in view of the fact that the petitioner had withdrawn her application for voluntary retirement by communication dated 18. 5. 2006. It is further submitted that as the petitioner even subsequent to 30. 4. 2006 attended her school and her pay slips were also prepared by the concerned school, the relationship of employer and employee continued and as such the respondent authority could not have voluntarily retired the petitioner from service w. e. f. 30. 4. 2006.