Delhi High Court
Sh.Bir Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 8 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.69/2010
% Date of Decision: 08.01.2010
Sh.Bir Singh .... Petitioner
Through Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors .... Respondents
Through Mr.Rohit Madan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
The petitioner was a head constable who tendered his resignation
after putting 26 years of service at the age of 46 on 16th April, 2003,
however, on the advice of Additional Commissioner of Police in place of
resignation, the petitioner substituted the word 'resignation' with
'voluntary retirement' and consequently competent authority had issued
order permitting voluntary retirement of the petitioner on 30th April,
2003.
The petitioner preferred an O.A against non consideration of his
representation seeking withdrawal of his voluntary retirement which
was disposed of by order dated 15th September, 2004 directing the
Commissioner of Police to consider the representation of petitioner
dated 22nd April, 2004.
On consideration of the representation of the petitioner powers
were exercised under Rule 29 of Delhi Police (Appointment and
Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and by order dated 24th March, 2005 the
petitioner was ordered to be re-employed though the petitioner had
drawn gratuity and had also got his pension commuted and was
drawing pension as admissible to a retired employee.
Though by order dated 24th March, 2005, the petitioner was re-
employed, however, he challenged the order and sought reinstatement
with all consequential benefits including seniority. The application of
the petitioner was disposed of with a direction to the respondents that
his matter may be re-examined and sent to concerned Ministry for
approval to consider his request for withdrawal of his voluntary
retirement and in case it is acceded to, the petitioner be accorded
continuity of service.
The Government of NCT however taking into consideration the
facts and circumstances declined the request for withdrawal of
voluntary retirement order dated 30th April, 2003 and re-employment
order dated 24th March, 2005 was also not acceded to.
The petitioner challenged the order of the Government not
acceding to withdrawal of voluntary retirement and re-employment
order dated 24th March, 2005 on the ground that when the Tribunal
had found that there was hardship, the Government could not take a
different view. The Tribunal after considering the respective contentions
has directed the respondents to further consider the representation of
the petitioner for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement despite the
order passed by the respondents in view of Rule 88 of the Pension
Rules. The Deputy Commissioner of Police has been directed to pass
further orders in line with the order dated 6th July, 2005 passed in O.A
No.902/2005 and Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioner
Welfare has been directed to pass the orders within three months. The
petitioner has also been given an option to surrender the monetary
benefits on all accounts received by him after informing the Chief
Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi, Secretary, Department of
Pension and Pensioner Welfare and the Commissioner of Police within
one month. The Tribunal clarified that in case the petitioner applies and
a letter is received from him, the petitioner be admitted to duty
forthwith after remittance of money involved and thereafter the
respondents were directed to charge nominal interest or totally waive
the interest on the amount to be surrendered by the petitioner.
Regarding seniority, the Tribunal declined to restore the seniority
of the petitioner on the ground that he had himself been responsible for
the loss of the seniority.
The petitioner sought clarification of order dated 1st December,
2008 and filed a MA No.451/2009 which was also disposed of by order
dated 28th July, 2009 holding that the order dated 1st December, 2008
does not require any further clarification.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has very emphatically
contended that the contradictory views have been expressed by the
Tribunal in paras 13, 14 and 15 of the order dated 1st December, 2008.
Perusal of the impugned order reveals that despite not acceding
to the pleas and contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner was given
liberty to make a representation with directions to the respondent to
reconsider and in case of surrender of monetary benefits already availed
by the petitioner, to re-employ him with liberty to respondent to
adjudicate and decide the interest chargeable from the petitioner on the
monetary benefits which were utilized by him. However, the claim of the
petitioner for restoration of seniority was declined. There are no such
contradictions as has been alleged by the petitioner. There is no such
irregularity or illegality in the order of the Tribunal which will require
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore,
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
January 8, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k'
