Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Ors. v. Smt. Mohani Devi & Anr.
Background
A conductor employed since 1979 applied for voluntary retirement in 2005 citing health reasons, but the Corporation did not act on it: partly because disciplinary charge-sheets were pending against him at the time. He then resigned in 2006, which was accepted, and he received his dues. He soon claimed he had mistakenly written "resignation" instead of "voluntary retirement," but nothing further happened in his lifetime. After his death, his widow filed a writ petition claiming full retiral benefits as if he had voluntarily retired, and both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled in her favour.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that an employee does not have an automatic, indefeasible right to have a voluntary retirement application accepted, especially where disciplinary proceedings are pending: the employer can decline to act on it while an inquiry is ongoing. Since the employee had instead resigned, that resignation (and the benefits paid for it) stood, and the High Court erred in deeming the earlier voluntary retirement application "accepted" years later and after his death, particularly given the belated nature of the claim. However, the Court directed that any gratuity still legitimately due under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (which applies even to resignation) must be calculated and paid to the widow.
Lesson Learnt
An employee's request for voluntary retirement is not automatically deemed granted merely because the employer stays silent, particularly during pending disciplinary proceedings; however, resignation does not forfeit an employee's separate statutory right to gratuity, which must still be paid.