S.S Rawat vs Union Of India & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2356 Del

$-29
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                       Date of decision: May 20, 2013
+       W.P.(C) 3316/2013

        S.S RAWAT                                  ..... Petitioner
                 Represented by:       Mr.Sanjiv Joshi, Advocate

                     versus

        UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     ..... Respondents
                 Represented by:       Mr.Sunil Kumar, Adv. for R-1


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

C.M No.6293/2013 (Exemption) Allowed.

W.P.(C) 3316/2013

1. On March 22, 2010 petitioner submitted an application seeking to be voluntarily retired with effect from July 02, 2010. The request was not withdrawn till it was accepted on May 04, 2010.

2. But, the date with effect wherefrom the petitioner would have voluntarily retired continued to be July 02, 2010.

3. On June 22, 2010 petitioner requested that the date wherefrom

W. P.(C) 3316/2013 1 of 4 he should be voluntarily retired be changed to September 30, 2010. The request was accepted. The reason appears to be a chance of the petitioner being promoted in the interregnum. While seeking voluntary retirement, petitioner projected domestic necessity.

4. On June 26, 2010, petitioner withdrew request for being voluntarily retired.

5. In the interregnum, an order had been passed transferring the petitioner, in public interest, to Pune. He represented on July 29, 2010 against the order transferring him, highlighting therein that since he would be due to superannuate on request and his request for voluntary retirement being accepted with effect from September 20, 2010, transfer orders be kept in abeyance. The authority concern withdrew the transfer posting order dated July 29, 2010.

6. Petitioner request dated June 26, 2010 to withdraw his request seeking to be voluntarily retired was not accepted and he filed O.A No.1059/2012.

7. Both, petitioner and the department relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (1987) (Supp) SCC 228 Balram Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr.

8. Whereas the petitioner relied upon observations in the said decision that government servant who submits request for being voluntarily retired would have a right to withdraw the same to which the department replied: but acceptance thereof would be contingent upon the administrative exigencies. Meaning thereby, the department can successfully stonewall a request for withdrawing a request for voluntary retirement if the department can successfully establish that

W. P.(C) 3316/2013 2 of 4 withdrawal would affect the administrative set up.

9. In the impugned decision dated April 09, 2013, the Tribunal has held against the petitioner on two accounts. Firstly that notwithstanding he having made a request on June 26, 2010 to withdraw his request to be voluntarily retired, the petitioner successfully overcame the transfer order dated July 29, 2010 by submitting a representation in which he highlighted to the competent authority that it would be useless to transfer him in the end of July, 2010 when he would be superannuating on September 30, 2010 as a result of his request to be voluntarily retired having been accepted on May 04, 2010. He suppressed the fact that he had requested for his voluntarily retirement request to be permitted to be withdrawn. Secondly, as a matter of fact, the Tribunal has held that administrative set up would be adversely affected.

10. As regards the latter, we note that a limited departmental exam had been conducted in the meanwhile for the post of AAO, the one was held by the petitioner. The department had already initiated the process to depute such persons who would have clear the limited departmental exam and suffice would it be to state that a person named Mr.Bhadra Kumar was ultimately posted to fill up the vacancy caused as a result of petitioner being retired at his request. It may be true that Mr.Bhadra Kumar took over on December 08, 2010, but the law is to see whether the department had put into place a scheme of transfer posting which would subsumes the post vacated by the person who seeks on being voluntarily retired.

11. We see no reason to differ with the decision taken by the

W. P.(C) 3316/2013 3 of 4 Tribunal and, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition.

12. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

MAY 20, 2013 km

W. P.(C) 3316/2013 4 of 4