DR. LALIT KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was serving as a Professor and Head of Paediatric Surgery, Medical College, Rohtak applied for voluntary retirement vide application dated 25.9.1992 (annexure P/9) by giving a notice of three months under rule 5.32A of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (Volume II). The petitioner stated that he would be attaining the age of 50 years on 24.12.1992 and therefore, he may be allowed to retire with effect from 26.12.1991. On this application of the petitioner, Assistant Administrative Officer of the College wrote letter dated 4.11.1992 (Annexure P/10) to all heads of department units of Medical College, Rohtak to intimate if anything was outstanding against the petitioner. Subsequently, the Director of the Medical College, Rohtak informed the petitioner vide letter dated 15.12.1992. That as per Government instruction he had not completed 20 years of service and as such his request for voluntary retirement cannot be considered. After issue of annexure P/11 dated 15.12.1992 by the Director of the College, the petitioner wrote letter dated 17.12.1992 (Annexure P/12) to the Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Haryana, Health and Medical Education Department, submitting his resignation from service. He requested that he may be relieved from duties in the forenoon of 18.1.1993. The petitioner handed over his charge on 18.1.1993 vide annexure P/13. In the meantime government issued order annexure P/16 accepting the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 18.1.1993 (afternoon). Thereafter the petitioner applied for pension and other retiral benefits vide application dated 16.2.1993 annexure P/17. Request made by the petitioner for grant of pension has been declined by the Government and the decision of the Government has been conveyed to the petitioner vide annexure P/18.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that denial of pensionary benefits to the petitioner suffers from patent illegality because the petitioner must be deemed to have retired from service with effect from 26.12.1992 and rejection of his request by the Director vide letter dated 15.12.1992 was inconsequential. Learned counsel argued that once the petitioner had given three month's notice seeking voluntary retirement, his voluntary retirement became automatically operative with effect from 26.12.1992 and the mere fact that the petitioner had tendered his resignation from service vide application dated 17.12.1992 should be treated as irrelevant. He further argued that acceptance of the petitioner's request for resignation from service was also irrelevant. Learned counsel argued that on the basis of his retirement from service with effect from 26.12.1992 the petitioner has right to be paid pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits. In support of his submissions learned counsel relied on Dinesh Chandra Sangama v. State of Assam, 1978 1 SLR 25 and B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat, 1978 2 SLR 88

(3.) The petitioner's claim for being treated as retired automatically with effect from 26.12.1992 cannot be accepted and, therefore, his claim for grant of pension and other retiral benefits is untenable. A perusal of annexures P/9 to P/12 and P/16 shows that initially the petitioner has submitted an application for voluntary retirement with effect from 26.12.1992. The Director, Medical College, Rohtak declined to consider there request of the petitioner and intimated this to the petitioner on 15.12.1992. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner submitted an application dated 17.12.1992 and stated that he was resigning from service by giving one month's notice. The resignation of the petitioner has been accepted by the Government with affect from 18.1.1993. Whether the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was wrongly declined by the Director of the College and whether the decision conveyed by the Director was unjustified are the questions which have, in our opinion, lost relevance in view of the fact that after 15.12.1992 the petitioner submitted his resignation from service and his resignation was accepted by the Government vide communication dated 14.1.1993. Since the petitioner has resigned from service, he cannot claim benefits which are otherwise admissible to a person who seeks retirement from service. Learned counsel has not been able to place before us any rule or instruction entitling pension, gratuity etc. to an employee who has resigned from service. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding deemed retirement of the petitioner from service with effect from 26.12.1992 cannot be accepted because before 26.12.1992, the Director of the College had intimated to the petitioner in writing that his request for voluntary retirement cannot be considered. It was open to the petitioner to challenge that action of the Director and seek appropriate direction from the Court. However, what the petitioner did was to have resigned from service.