The court ruled that voluntary retirement can be deemed granted after notice expiration, while administrative decisions regarding leave classification must not disadvantage employee eligibility for retirement benefits.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. W.P.(C) No.11304/2018 impugns the order dated 23April, 2018 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA No.3140/2017 preferred by the respondent.

2. W.P.(C) No.11304/2018 came up first before this Court on 22nd October, 2018, when notice thereof was ordered to be issued and the operation of the order dated 23rd April, 2018 of CAT stayed.

3. The factual matrix in the OA, as noted by CAT in the impugned order, is (i) the respondent was appointed as a Primary Teacher, by the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), on 18th October, 1995; (ii) on trifurcation of MCD in the year 2012, the respondent was allocated to the petitioner South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC); (iii) the respondent, on 30th September, 2016, claiming to have completed 21 years of service, applied, under Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (CCS) (Pension) Rules, 1972 enabling a government servant to, on completing 20 years of qualifying service, apply for VRS, after giving not less than three months' notice to the Appointing Authority, stating that the said communication be treated as a three months' notice with effect from 19th October, 2016; (iv) the respondent, on completion of three months' notice period, vide letter dated 18th January, 2017 asked to be relieved from duty, stating that as per the instructions from the District Education Officer, South Zone, on 16th January, 2017, she was advised that her VRS notice has been accepted and official orders will be sent through post in due course; (v) the respondent was relieved of her duties and handed over charge to the Principal of the School where she was working; (vi) the respondent, vide communication dated 24th April, 2017, requested for release of her pensionary benefits and when the same were not released, reminders dated 27th April, 2017, 28th April, 2017, 2nd May, 2017, 15th May, 2017, 1st June, 2017 and 19th June, 2017 were sent; (vii) the respondent, vide letter dated 18th April, 2017, was informed that her request for VRS had not been approved because she had not completed qualifying service of 20 years and was asked to join duty with immediate effect; (viii) vide another letter dated 21st July, 2017, the respondent's request for VRS was rejected, explaining that she had not completed 20 years of qualifying service since the Extra-Ordinary Leave (EOL) taken by her on medical ground of her daughter did not count as qualifying service, thereby reducing total number of service to 18 years and three months; the respondent was again asked to immediately join duty; and, (ix) impugning the said communications dated 18th April, 2017 and 21st July, 2017, the OA had been filed.

4. CAT, in the impugned order has further noted that it was the contention of the respondent, (a) that the respondent has served three months' notice effective from 19th October, 2016 and her VRS became effective on the date of expiry of the said notice period i.e. on 18th January, 2017; (b) that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Kulwant Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, 2002 SCC OnLine P&H 1288 has held that authorities cannot take a somersault by saying that the qualified service was less than 20 years, after allowing the employee to proceed on voluntary retirement; (c) that the respondent was granted child care leave from 19th October, 2010 to 15th February, 2011 i.e. of 120 days; that the respondent, vide her letter dated 3rd February, 2011 had requested for extension of her child care leave from 16th February, 2011 to 31st March, 2012 due to the medical problems of her daughter; (d) that the respondent, vide her representation dated 24