N L GOTHWAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working in the respondent Central Bank of India and because of certain domestic circumstances he wanted his transfer from Bharatpur to Jaipur on compassionate grounds to enable him to get his a well as his sons medical treatment. But ultimately not finding any favourable reply, he compelled with the circumstances, submitted his resignation to the Regional office of the Bank on 6. 4. 1992, copy of which is attached as Annexure-3 wherein after narrating the circumstances mentioned therein the had stated that he was being forced to resign. However, this resignation was withdrawn by him vide Annexure-4 dated 26. 6. 1992. He was being asked to explain about his absence when he was posted at Bharatpur. THE petitioner did not receive any reply to the revocation of his resignation Annexure-4 till the end of November 1992, when he received a letter dated 2. 12. 1992, accepting his resignation dated 16. 3. 1992 and also relieving from service from 14. 5. 1992. THE petitioner states that even though his resignation was dated 16. 3. 1992 but actually it was submitted on 6. 4. 1992. He is challenging the order Annexure-6 as being illegal and contrary to Regulation 20 of the Central Bank of India Service Regulations, 1979 and states that once he had withdrawn his resignation vide Annexure-4, no resignation could be accepted after letter Annexure-4. He was informed on 2. 12. 1992 that his letter of revocation of resignation had not been accepted and his resignation dated 16. 3. 1992 has been accepted w. e. f. 14. 5. 1992. THE petitioner gave a notice to the respondents.

(2.) IN the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that the voluntary resignation dated 16. 3. 1992 was accepted by the General Manager, Central office, Bombay on 9. 5. 1992 which was communicated to Delhi Office vide letter dated 14. 5. 1992 and Jaipur Regional Office was advised by letter dated 20. 5. 1992 and the Branch Office, Bharatpur where the petitioner was last posted was informed on 27. 5. 1992 to the effect that his resignation had been accepted and, therefore, acceptance of resignation there was no question of revocation of resignation dated 26. 6. 1992 by the petitioner. The bank had only informed the petitioner that the letter of resignation cannot be accepted.

(3.) RELIANCE is placed on D. B. Judgment of this Court in the case of Bansi Lal and ors. vs. Hindustan Copper Ltd. and Ors. (3), wherein no document was placed on the record to show that retirement had been accepted prior to the date of his withdrawal. It was settled law that before request of the voluntary retirement was accepted by the employer, the employee can withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. The normal rule is that a person can withdraw his application before it is effective but it may not apply in full force where there is specific provision. It was further observed that the appellant had withdrawn their applications for voluntary retirement on 24. 7. 1993. Authority had conveyed to the appellant that the application of voluntary retirement had been accepted, in such situation, it was held that the petitioner was entitled to continue in service.