Back
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, V. KAMESWAR RAO
Kamlesh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
1. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated August 07, 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in the Original Application being O.A. 1600/2018 (`OA', for short), whereby the Tribunal has rejected the OA filed by the petitioner by holding the following in paragraph 5 of the impugned order:-
"5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings on record, we find that the applicant has submitted his VRS application on 1.10.2016 and thereafter without waiting for its acceptance proceeded on leave. It is general practice that once an employee has given notice for VRS, he has to wait for its acceptance by the employer and cannot abscond from his duties. If at all, it was his intention to proceed on leave, he could have applied for the leave of the kind due to him. Having failed to do so, he cannot take it for granted that his VRS application was accepted and he is deemed to have been retired voluntarily. Through the impugned annexure A/1 order, the respondents have even disputed his qualifying service so as to enable him to apply for voluntary retirement
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a thorough examination of an employee's service history and qualifying service when considering a voluntary retirement scheme a....
When the petitioner was not eligible to submit a notice to retire under Rule 48-A, rejection was beyond the period of three months and the petitioner is deemed to have retired is unsustainable.
A government servant's qualifying service includes periods of unauthorized absence unless a disciplinary proceeding is initiated. The voluntary retirement request must be accepted if not explicitly r....
The court established that work-charged and unjustified suspension periods count towards qualifying service for pension eligibility, even post voluntary retirement, with limits on retrospective claim....
An employee can withdraw a voluntary retirement application before the effective date of retirement, as affirmed by the Court, ensuring that rights under Article 21 are protected; engaging in post-re....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation and conduct of the enquiry, rejection order, and resultant removal of the petitioner from service were wrong, illegal, and arbi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility for premature retirement under Rule 3(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976, and the interpretatio....
Point of Law : If the respondents are permitted to revisit such orders, it would lead to uncertainty for those who would want to arrange their affairs after having made a request, as per the extant l....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
