Delhi High Court
944551468 H/C Dilbag Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 29 November, 2021
$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13473/2021 & C.M.No.42481/2021
944551468 H/C DILBAG SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Dr.Janak Raj Rana, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.JPN Shahi, Advocate and
Mr.Hemendra Singh, Law Officer,
BSF.
% Date of Decision: 29th November, 2021
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
MANMOHAN, J. (Oral)
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6th
October, 2021 vide which the Petitioner was denied voluntary retirement by
the competent authority on the ground that he is under order of posting to 49
Bn BSF. The competent authority also directed that the Petitioner may
submit his notice of voluntary retirement at his new place of posting if he
intends to proceed on voluntary retirement from service.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner, a Head
Constable with the BSF, submitted his voluntary retirement notice to the
Commandant 25 Bn, BSF under Rule 48 (a) GID (i) of the CCS Pension
Rules, 1972 and the same was accepted by the competent authority under
Rule 5 read with Rule 30 of the BSF Rules, 1969 vide order dated 5th
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:01.12.2021
16:11:50
October, 2020. He states that as per this order the Petitioner was supposed to
be struck off from the rolls from 1st January, 2021. He states that this order
was cancelled vide order dated 21st December, 2020 upon the request of the
Petitioner as he had sustained an injury on his left shoulder.
3. He further states that the Petitioner sought to apply for voluntary
retirement again and to extend his date of discharge to 31st October, 2021.
He contends that competent authority vide the impugned order refused to
grant voluntary retirement under Sub-rule 4 of Rule 48 A of the CCS
Pension Rules and the Petitioner has been asked to submit his application to
his new unit, which is completely arbitrary.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that voluntary retirement can
be denied only if the interest of service so demands. He states that the
Petitioner has served in the BSF for 27 years with utmost diligence and
devotion and there is no reason to deny him voluntary retirement. He states
that the Petitioner is the sole caretaker of his 72 years old ailing mother and
depriving him of voluntary retirement will prevent him from performing his
duties towards his mother.
5. Issue notice. Mr.J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of
the Respondents.
6. This Court is of the view that by way of the impugned order dated 06th
October, 2021, the Petitioner has only been directed to submit his notice of
voluntary retirement at his new place of posting. Since the Petitioner has
been transferred from 25 Bn, BSF to 49 Bn, BSF and must have been struck
off from the record of 25 Bn, BSF, his prayer for voluntary retirement can
only be considered by way of his new unit i.e. 49 Bn, BSF.
7. Consequently, the present writ petition along with pending application
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:01.12.2021
16:11:50
is disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner to apply afresh for voluntary
retirement at his new place of posting i.e. 49 Bn, BSF. In the event, such an
application is filed, the same shall be decided by the Respondents within
eight weeks by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition along with
pending application is disposed of. This Court clarifies that it has not
commented on the merit of the controversy. The rights and contentions of
all the parties are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
NOVEMBER 29, 2021
KA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
Signing Date:01.12.2021
16:11:50
