Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/6039/2007 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6039 of 2007
=========================================================
UNION
OF INDIA & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUMANBHAI
KUVARJIBHAI PARMAR - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HARIN P RAVAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3.
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI
Date
: 06/03/2007
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.J.SHETHNA)
The
petitioners Union of India and others have challenged in this
petition the impugned judgment and order dated 10.8.2006 passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for
short `the Tribunal’) in O.A. No.641 of 2005 whereby the learned
Tribunal allowed the application filed by the original applicant ?
present respondent and quashed and set side the order dated 24.9.2005
and directed the present petitioners to permit the original applicant
to resume the duty treating him as in continuous service with all
consequential benefits.
The
original applicant-Shri Gumanbhai Kuvarjibhai Parmar was working as
P.A. By his letter dated 23.6.2005 (Annexure-A) he applied for
voluntary retirement with effect from 30.9.2005, on completion of
qualifying pension service of 25 years. His application was accepted
by the authority by the order dated 9.9.2005 (Annexure-B) and he was
permitted to retire with effect from 30.9.2005. However, on
22.9.2005 (Annexure-C), the applicant requested the Authority for
treating his retirement application as cancelled as he wanted to
serve for the remaining period till the date of his superannuation.
The said application was straightaway rejected, without assigning any
reason, by the authority by order dated 24.9.2005 (Annexure-D).
Aggrieved by the same, the applicant approached the learned Tribunal
by way of O.A. No.641 of 2005.
Relying
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Balram
Gupta v. Union of India reported in [1987]5 ATC 246, the
learned Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned order 24.9.2005
passed by the Authority rejecting his application for withdrawal of
his voluntary retirement and ordered to reinstate him in service with
all consequential benefits, which is challenged in this petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Though
this petition is labelled as petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, strictly speaking it is a petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope of which is very
narrow and limited. Unless there is jurisdiction error, this court
would not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, as held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in umpteen number of decisions.
Shri
Harin Raval learned Assistant Solicitor General for the petitioners
vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed serious
error in allowing the application filed by the original applicant.
He submitted that once the letter of voluntary retirement is accepted
by the Authority, then it was not permissible to the applicant to
withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. He submitted that
in this case the original applicant submitted his application for
voluntarily retirement on 23.6.2005 by giving clear 3 months notice
he wanted to retire from service with effect from 30.9.2005. His
application was processed by the Authority and by an order dated
9.9.2005 he was permitted to retire with effect from 30.9.2005. It
is true that thereafter the applicant submitted application dated
22.9.2005 to the Authority for treating his application for voluntary
retirement as cancelled. However, it it clear from the order at
Annexure-B dated 9.9.2005 that the applicant was allowed to to retire
from service with effect from 30.9.2005. Therefore, in view of the
rule 48A(4) of the rules, it was always permissible for the applicant
to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement before
30.9.2005. Once he has applied, then the authority without any valid
reasons cannot reject the same. Considering this and relying on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Balram Gupta (supra)
the learned Tribunal allowed the application. In that view of the
matter, there is no question of interference in this matter.
In
view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
(B.J.SHETHNA,
J.)
(H.B.ANTANI,
J.)
*pvv
Top
