S.I./G.D. Talib Hussain vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4572 Del

$~2
*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of Decision: August 01, 2012

+                 W.P.(C) 4435/2012

      S.I./G.D. TALIB HUSSAIN                  ..... Petitioner
            Represented by:Mr.Satish Chand Gupta and
                           Mr.Naushad Alam Usmani, Advocates

                       versus

      UOI & ORS.                            ..... Respondents
           Represented by: Mr.Sumeet Pushkarna and
                           Mr.Varun Dubey, Advocates for UOI
                           Mr.Loknath Pandey, SI Ministerial.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Having rendered 29 years' service, the petitioner pleads that he was wrongfully denied leave when his wife was seriously ill, and wrongfully considering petitioner's application seeking leave which was submitted on May 10, 2010, as a request for being voluntarily retired, the petitioner was made to voluntary retire and his protests before the superior officers were not considered.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the post haste with which petitioner's request for being voluntarily retired was accepted, would show that the same was extracted under compulsion.

3. There is an obvious disconnect between what petitioner alleges as per para 1 above and what is alleged as per para 2 above. On the one hand it is pleaded that the

petitioner never sought voluntary retirement and that his letter seeking leave was wrongly treated as a request to be voluntarily retired; in the very next breath the petitioner asserts that his application seeking to be voluntarily retired was obtained under duress.

4. We had summoned the relevant record. The same evidences that the petitioner had virtually stopped working since the year 2008. In the year 2009 the petitioner had availed his full earned leave and had overstayed leave by 136 days; which was adjusted against half pay leave. As of October 08, 2009 leave overstayed was by 136 days. The petitioner had desired leave to be sanctioned in May 2010, which was obviously denied for good reason. The petitioner used to be perpetually on leave. On May 25, 2010 the petitioner once again prayed to be granted 15 days' casual leave and in said letter he made a request in the alternative, that if leave could not be sanctioned, the letter be treated as his request to be voluntarily retired; and the reason he gave therein was a domestic problem.

5. From the fact that the petitioner was overstaying leave in the past, it is apparent that he was having some domestic issues. The Commandant considered the request favourably and since no leave could be sanctioned, called the petitioner to his office the next day i.e. on May 26, 2010, on which date the petitioner, under his signatures, gave in writing that he was explained the likely hardship which he would face on seeking voluntary retirement (and that obviously would be a drop in earnings) and that he still seeks to be voluntarily retired due to domestic problems. The very same day i.e. May 26, 2010 the order accepting petitioner's request to be

voluntarily retired was accepted and an order passed and handed over to the petitioner the same day. Everything was done quickly to help the petitioner reach home, as he was anxious to rush back home. The very same day the petitioner completed the necessary formalities i.e. surrendered his dress and other items which were issued to him and obtained a No Objection to leave the Unit lines from the quarter master. Thereafter, he obtained a No Dues Certificate on May 27, 2010 and left for his house.

6. Around first week of July he sent a protest letter for the first time and in which he never explained his conduct of returning his dress and other items received by him and obtaining a No Dues certificate. It is obvious that the petitioner had his purpose satisfied i.e. to be in his house for the entire month of June. Having a bird in hand, he wanted two.

7. Thereafter, on August 09, 2011 he went and received the dues which were payable to him on being retired i.e. gratuity, provident fund etc. and received two cheques in sum of `33,824/- and `2,41,138/- and thereafter made a second representation alleging that his request for leave was wrongly treated as a request to be voluntarily retired.

8. The facts noted by us with reference to the record completely belie the petitioner. The record would reveal that the petitioner was having some domestic problem. He was overstaying leave. In the year 2009, 136 days' overstayed leave was regularized against half-pay leave. In May 2010, the petitioner wanted leave again. The Force which he serves i.e. CRPF could not grant him leave. It is apparent that the petitioner took voluntary retirement.

9. Before parting, we frown upon the attempt by the petitioner to give a religious colour to the matter by alleging discrimination on account of his professing Islamic faith. It is nothing but a hogwash to sensationalize an issue.

10. We dismiss the writ petition but refrain from imposing costs keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has served the nation for 29 years.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 01, 2012 dk