Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2210
High Court of Delhi
GITA MITTAL & DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
R. Kothandaraman
Versus
Lok Sabha Secretariat
LPA No. 110 of 2013
Decided On : 01-10-2014
For the Appellant:R.K. Saini, Vivja Nigpal & Ayush Arora, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Pramod Gupta, Umakant Kataria & Yogita Verma, Advocates.
Headnote:
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 -Rule 48, 54, 58(1), 63(1), 66 and 82(1) - Service - Retirement - Voluntary retirement - Withdrawal - Appellant sought to withdraw the voluntary retirement request which was not accepted - Appeal was rejected - Writ petition was filed by the appellant almost two years after rejection of his appeal - Appellant had engaged in getting his terminal benefits fixed - Appellant has unconditionally and with prejudice accepted the retiral benefits which were paid in lump-sum - Appellant had not objected to the payments of benefits or made any representation to the respondent that the terminal benefits ought not to be finalized - Income tax was regularly paid on the pension amount - Appellant cannot be permitted to reprobate and a probate at the same time - Even if it could be held that the petitioner had voluntarily and rightly tendered the application for withdrawal of the resignation - Same stood superseded as is evident from his intent to proceed with the retirement request by sending the duly filled forms on the same date for processing the pension - Conduct of the appellant in concealing material facts and generating this unwarranted and dishonest litigation, two years after the events - Appellant is burdened with heavy costs - Appeal is dismissed.
Deepa Sharma Gita Mittal, J.
1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant assails the judgment dated 10th of January, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge.
An application dated 6th of June, 2008 by the petitioner seeking to voluntarily retire from the Lok Sabha Secretariat under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 has generated the present litigation. After it stood accepted, the appellant sought to withdraw the voluntary retirement request which was not accepted. The appellant‘s appeal was also rejected by the order dated 20th of November, 2008. These rejections were challenged by the appellant by way of W.P.(C) No.7132/2009. This writ petition was rejected by the learned Single Judge by the order dated 10th of January, 2013 inter alia on the ground that the appellant was estopped by his conduct from challenging the rejection.
2. Inasmuch as the petitioner‘s claim rests on Rule 48 A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, for the purposes of convenience the same deserves to be extracted and reads thus:
“48-A Retirement on completion of 20 years’ qualifying service
(1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service.
Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to a Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who is—
(i) On assignments under the Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes.
(ii) Posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries/Departments,
(iii) On a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government, unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year.
(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the Appointing Authority: Provided that where the Appointing Authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
(3-A) (a) A Government servant referred to in sub-rule (1) may make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor;
(b) On receipt of a request under Clause (a), the Appointing Authority subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the Appointing Authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months.
(4) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the Appointing Authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority:
Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.
*(5) The pension and (retirement gratuity) of the Government servant retiring under this rule shall be based on the emoluments as defined under Rules 33 and 34 and the increase not exceeding five years in his qualifying service shall not entitle him to any national fixation of pay for purposes of calculating pension and gratuity.
(6) This rule shall not apply to a Government servant who—
(a) retires under rule 29, or
(b) retires from Government service for being absorbed permanently in an Autonomous Body or a Public Sector Undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement.”
(Emphasis supplied)
3. The facts givi
