KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Vs. DARSHAN SINGH GILL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 226 preferred by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and its officer (for brevity the petitioner-KVS) is directed against order dated 25.02.2011 rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal'), which has granted the relief claimed by the original applicant-respondent because he has withdrawn his resignation before the effective date given therein although resignation was accepted by the petitioner on a date anterior to the effective date given by the original applicantrespondent. The view of the Tribunal is based on various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Balram Gupta v. Union of India & another, 1987 AIR(SC) 2354 and Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India, 2000 2 SCT 807 .

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-KVS at considerable length.

(3.) Few facts are necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in the instant petition. The original applicant served a notice dated 24.06.2008 (A-5) for voluntary retirement stipulating that he may be given voluntary retirement from 30.09.2008 i.e. after a period of three months. The Petitioner-KVS accepted this request on 25.07.2008 (A-7), which is obviously anterior to the date stipulated in the notice. The original applicant-respondent changed his mind and withdrawn the notice of voluntary retirement on 13.09.2008 (A-8), which is more than two weeks prior to the effective date for withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement. It was in somewhat similar facts and circumstances that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held in Shambhu Murari Sinha's case that the original applicant-respondent was entitled to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement before the effective date given by him despite the fact that it has been accepted by the petitioner CWP No. 10105 of 2011 KVS. The matter is fully covered by the view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and does not call for interference at the hands of the this Court.