JAWAHARLAL BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined as an Assistant Teacher on 7.7.70 under the Government of Tripura. By a notification dated 28.3.95, his services were placed under the Tripura Tribal Area Autonomous District Council (for short, TTAADC") and on 11.8.95 he joined as Assistant Inspector of Schools at Chailengtha, TTAADC. On 24.8.95, he was requested by the Office of the Inspector of Schools, Chailengtha to take the complete charge of Manughat Circle, TTAADC in Dhalai District by 31.8.95. Since August, 1995, the petitioner served as Assistant Inspector of Schools at Manughat Circle, TTAADC. While serving at the said place as Assistant Inspector of Schools, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 9.9.96 to the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, stating therein that he would like to go on voluntary retirement and that he be relieved from service on and from the afternoon of 10.12.96. The said letter dated 9.9.96 of the petitioner was forwarded by the Inspector of Schools, Education Directorate, Chailengtha, TTAADC, to the Principal Officer (Education), Autonomous District Council, who in turn forwarded the same to the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura by his letter dated 1.11.96. The petitioner's case is that he waited for the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura to accept his request for voluntary retirement, but when no acceptance was communicated to him by the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura, by his letter dated 21.5.98 to the said Director the petitioner withdrew his request for voluntary retirement. After the withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement dated 21.5.98, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 29.5.98 of the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura that his notice for voluntary retirement had been accepted by letter dated 2.7.97 and that he had been allowed to retire voluntarily from service with effect from 10.12.96 as per his notice for voluntary retirement. On these facts as stated in the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2.7.97 of the Director of School Education and for directions on the respondents to treat the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement as withdrawn and to allow him to resume his duties as Assistant Inspector of Schools under the Education Directorate, Chailengtha, TTAADC and to treat the period of absence from duty as on duty as per Rules and to make payment of his salary.

(2.) Mr C. S. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in BaljitSingh-Vs-State of Haryana, 1997 AIR SCW 2004- AIR 1997 SC 2150, that mere expiry of the period of notice for voluntary retirement does not automatically put an end to jural relationship of employer and employee between Government and the Government servant and it is only on acceptance by the employer of the request for voluntary retirement that their jural relationship ceases. Hence, according to Mr Sinha, unless the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement with effect from 10.12.96 was accepted before 10.12.96 by the Director of School Education, the petitioner's voluntary retirement could not take effect from 10.12.96. He further contended that before acceptance of the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 29.5.98 of the Director of School Education, the petitioner withdraw the request for voluntary retirement by his letter dated 21.5.98 to the Education, Inspectorate Chailengtha, TTAADC. Hence, after 21.5.98, the Director of School Education, could not have accepted the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. Alternatively, Mr Sinha submitted that since the petitioner received the aforesaid letter dated 29.5.98 of the Director of School Education accepting his request for voluntary retirement on 16.6.98, the voluntary retirement of the petitioner would also take effect from 16.6.98, and not from 10.12.96 (AN). Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to all his salaries and allowances upto 16.6.98 in case it is held by the Court that the petitioner is no longer in service.

(3.) Mr S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-2,4 and 5, on the other hand, relying on the averments in the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the said respondents, submitted that the delay in acceptance of the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement with effect from 10.12.96 (AN) was on account of the petitioner himself as he had not cleared his liability to the Government to the extent of Rs. 10,685/- He explained that by letter dated 24.5.96, the Director of School Education directed the petitioner to refund the said amount of Rs. 10,685/- which he had misappropriated after dismantling the old construction of Samrucherra JE School under- the Inspector of Schools, Kailasahar. In fact, a show cause notice dated 18.7.95 had earlier been issued to him and the petitioner had agreed to refund the compensation value of the lost articles for which he was liable. On 7.9.96, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Director of School Education stating therein that he was ready to deposit not more than Rs 2000/- and the Director of School Education took a lenient view and allowed the petitioner to deposit the said amount of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner then deposited the said amount through Treasury Challan on 26.2.97 and the Director of School Education thereafter accepted the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement by his letter dated 2.7.97. Mr Chakraborty further submitted that the said letter dated 2.7.97 of the Director of School Education accepting the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement with effect from 10.12.96 (AN) was sent by Registered post to the Inspector of Schools, Chailengtha, TTAADC, and the UDC in the office of the Inspector of Schools, Chailengtha handed over the said letter/order dated 2.7.97 of the Director of School Education to the petitioner and when the said UDC asked the petitioner for a receipt, the petitioner stated that there was no necessity for such a receipt. Mr Chakraborty referred to the statement of the said UDC, Smti Asha Lata Sangma, English version of which is annexed to the counter-affidavit of respondents -1 and 3 as Annexure-R/6. According to Mr Chakraborty, therefore, the acceptance of the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was duly communicated to him in August, 1997 and that the delay in acceptance of the said request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement with effect from 10.12.96 (AN) was due to the fact that the petitioner did not deposit the said sum of Rs.2000/- till 26.2.97. He also relied on the note to clause (vii) of the scheme for voluntary retirement of the State Government employees contained in Office Memo, dated 6.3.80 of the Government of Tripura, Finance Department which stated that even where the notice of voluntary retirement given by a Government servant requires acceptance by the appointing authority, the Government servant giving notice may presume acceptance and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice unless the competent authority issues an order to the contrary before expiry of the period of notice. The said note in the scheme for voluntary retirement, according to Mr Chakraborty, thus made it clear that notwithstanding the delay in acceptance of the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement, the petitioner stood retired voluntarily with effect from 10.12.96 (AN) in terms of his notice of voluntary retirement.