Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/986920/2008 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9869 of 2008
=========================================================
B.K.
PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MS TRIVEDI for Petitioner
None for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 31/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
1. The
petitioner challenges the order passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in Original Application No.136 of 2007,
rendered on 24th June, 2008.
2. The
petitioner is a Railway servant. According to him, he tendered an
application for voluntary retirement on 13th March, 2006,
in respect of which, an order was passed on 3rd May, 2006,
by the respondent-authorities, whereby, the petitioner was asked to
give consent on certain aspects whereafter the office can process the
case further. Aggrieved by this, the Tribunal was approached and the
Tribunal, by impugned order, dismissed the Original Application
observing that the petitioner did not produce his application dated
13th March, 2006, whereunder he had requested for
permission for voluntary retirement and, therefore, the Tribunal
expressed its inability to take a decision in the matter whether to
grant the reliefs sought before it, namely, to quash and set aside
the order dated 3rd May, 2006, and to direct the
respondents to allow the petitioner to retire voluntarily with
further directions to give all settlement dues on the basis of last
ten months’ salary of the petitioner.
3. Learned
advocate Mr.Trivedi for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal
erred in holding that because the application for voluntary
retirement dated 13th March, 2006, is not on record, it is
unable to grant the reliefs sought for in the Original Application
since the challenge by the petitioner before the Tribunal was on the
basis of communication dated 3rd May, 2006, on the ground
that the respondent-authorities having once decided to permit the
petitioner to retire voluntarily, any condition could not have been
imposed in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 501 of the
Railway Pension Rules.
3.1 Mr.Trivedi
has drawn our attention to Annexure-B, which is a copy of the
application for voluntary retirement dated 13th March,
2006. It is clear from the order of the Tribunal that this document
was not produced before the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal
said that it is not possible to decide whether to grant the reliefs
sought for by the petitioner or not, and rightly so in our opinion,
because that is the genesis as to in what circumstances and in what
context voluntary retirement is sought by petitioner.
4. We
have considered the submissions made before us. At the outset, we may
record that we do not find any fault with the Tribunal when it has
observed that the reliefs prayed for by petitioner in Original
Application cannot be granted in absence of communication dated 13th
March, 2006, that being the genesis. We are unable to accept the
contention of Mr.Trivedi that the respondent-authorities could not
have imposed any condition once they decided to permit the petitioner
to retire voluntarily in the light of Rule 501 of the Railway Pension
Rules, for the reason that a simple reading of communication dated
3rd May, 2006, which was challenged before the Tribunal,
makes it clear that by said communication, the respondent-authorities
inquired of the petitioner whether he is agreeable to the conditions
indicated therein and if he is desirous of voluntary retirement and
if he gives a written consent, his case for voluntary retirement may
be processed further. By no stretch of imagination can it be said
that the decision to accept the petitioner’s request for voluntary
retirement was accepted by the respondent-authorities.
4.1 The
contention that by virtue of Rule 501 of the Railway Pension Rules,
the petitioner would be entitled to last ten months’ average
remuneration without any condition is also ill-conceived for the
reason that the petitioner is working in Group-C by virtue of a
protection granted by this Court in Special Civil Application No.3434
of 2003, however, that order has not been produced before us.
5. We
also notice that the communication dated 13th March, 2006,
by virtue of which the petitioner claims to have applied for
voluntary retirement is a midstream communication because there is
reference to earlier communication dated 5th December,
2005, whereunder the request for voluntary retirement was made, which
is not produced either before the Tribunal or before us for the
reasons best known to the petitioner. We, therefore, do not find any
error having been committed by the Tribunal while dismissing the
Original Application nor do we find any merit in this petition. The
petition, therefore, must fail. It stands dismissed.
6. However,
since the petitioner seems to have acquired a copy of the
communication dated 13th March, 2006, it would be open for
him to approach the Tribunal for review of the matter in which
eventuality, the Tribunal will take a decision in accordance with
law.
(A.L.Dave,
J.)
(Smt.Abhilasha
Kumari, J.)
(sunil)
Top