Delhi High Court
Devi Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 January, 2007
Author: Mukul Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal, S Muralidhar
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J
Page 0468
1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6th July, 2000. The Tribunal has held against the petitioner and has distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Gupta v. UOI 1987 Supp. SCC 228 and J.N. Srivastava v. Union of India and Anr. , on the ground that the withdrawal of the voluntary retirement by the petitioner was conditional and he sought permission to continue in Delhi instead of joining the office of the respondent at Bhubaneswar as undertaken earlier. The relevant position of law in J.N. Srivastava's judgment (supra) reads as follows:
3. ... It is now well settled that even if the voluntary retirement notice is moved by an employee and gets accepted by the authority within the time fixed, before the date of retirement is reached, the employee has locus penitential to withdraw the proposal for voluntary retirement. The said view has been taken by a Bench of this Court in the case of Balram Gupta v. Union of India. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court it cannot be said that the appellant had no locus standi to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement before 31-1-1990. It is to be noted that once the request for cancellation of voluntary retirement was rejected by the authority concerned on 26-12-1989 and when the retirement came into effect on 31-1-1990 the appellant had no choice but to give up the charge of the post to avoid unnecessary complications. He, however, approached the Tribunal with the main grievance centering round the rejection of his request for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement proposal. The Page 0469 Tribunal, therefore, following the decision of this Court ought to have granted him the relief. We accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the orders of the Tribunal a well as the order of the authorities dated 26-12-1989 and directed the respondents to treat the appellant to have validly withdrawn his proposal for voluntary retirement with effect from 31-1-1990. The net result of this order is that the appellant will have to be treated to be in service till the date of his superannuation which is said to be somewhere in 1994 when he completed 58 years of age. The respondent authorities will have to make good to the appellant all monetary benefits by treating him to have continuously worked till the date of his actual superannuation in 1994.
3. A perusal of the record produced by the respondent themselves reveals that the letter dated 26th November, 1998 contains no such condition imposed by the petitioner that he will not join office at Bhubaneswar but in Delhi as sought to be contended by the respondent. In fact an office order of the respondent dated 3rd December, 1998 reads as follows:
No. 14/3/77-NMNH/Admn.(Vol.II)
Government of India
National Museum of Natural History
(Ministry of Environment and Forests)
FICCI Museum Building
Barakhamba Road
New Delhi 110 001.
Dated the December 3, 1998
OFFICE ORDER
Subsequent to the application of withdrawal of his notice period fro the voluntary retirement and further to the conditions contained in the Office Order even number dated 20th October, 1998 and his application of the notice period, Shri Devi Ram, Scientist SE is required to join his duties at the Regional Museum of Natural History, Bhubaneswar, latest by 10th December, 1998.
sd/-
(S.K. SARASWAT)
DIRECtor
Shri Devi Ram,
Scientist SE
Copy to:
1. Head of Office
2. Scientists-in-charge, RMNH, Mysore, Bhopal and Bhubaneshwar.
3. Deputy Secretary(P), Ministry of Environment and Forests.
4. All Officers, NMNH
5. Office Order file.?
4. This letter issued by the respondent belies the contention of the respondent that the withdrawal was conditional on the basis of which finding, the Tribunal has wholly erroneously sustained the plea of the respondent and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.
Page 0470
4. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.N. Srivastava's case (supra) following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Gupta's case (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the case as the resignation was withdrawn before it become effective and accordingly, the Tribunal's order cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. Accordingly, consequential benefits payable to the petitioner shall be paid to the petitioner not later than 1st May, 2007.
5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
