Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, JJ.
U.O.I. Thru. General Manager North Eastern Railway And Others - Petitioners
Versus
Dharmendra Kumar Sahu - Respondent
Writ A. No. 1940 of 2025
Decided On : 17-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition challenging the validity of orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding voluntary retirement - Petitioners contended that the respondent had not completed 22 years of qualifying service due to unauthorized absence, but the Tribunal found otherwise - The relevant Office Memorandum provisions were examined to determine the impact of unauthorized absence on service calculations. (Paras 4-12)
(B) Voluntary Retirement - The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to grant voluntary retirement, emphasizing that the absence without authority does not negate the already completed service, especially when minor penalties had been imposed. (Paras 16-19)
Facts of the case:
The respondent sought voluntary retirement after over 22 years of service, which the petitioners denied citing minor punishments and unauthorized absence. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to accept the request for retirement.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order was upheld, confirming the respondent's eligibility for voluntary retirement despite the petitioners' claims.
Issues: Whether the respondent completed the necessary qualifying service for voluntary retirement and the relevance of unauthorized absence in this context.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that minor punishments do not prevent the acceptance of voluntary retirement requests, and periods of unauthorized absence do not negate completed service.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri S. B. Pandey, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Ajit Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Amit Verma, the learned Counsel for the respondent.
2. By means of the instant Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioners have assailed validity of the order dated 04.08.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in O.A. No.332/00254/2021. The petitioners had filed Review Application No. 332/00006/2024 for review of the judgment and order dated 04.08.2023, which application has been rejected by means of an order dated 05.07.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for recall of the order dated 05.07.2024, which too has been rejected by means of an order dated 10.01.2025. The petitioners have challenged the validity of all the aforesaid orders by means of this Writ Petition.
3. The respondent had filed an application seeking voluntary retirement due to health issues. When no orders were passed on that application, he had filed the aforesaid original application seeking a direction to the authorities to take an appropriate decision on his application seeking voluntary retirement.
4. In paragraph 4.2 of the original application, the opposite party has specifically pleaded that he has completed more than 22 years of service. The petitioners have filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal wherein they admitted the aforesaid plea taken by the opposite party in his original application. It was stated in the counter affidavit that the respondent had been awarded two minor punishments vide order dated 19.02.2020. The first punishment of stoppage of an annual increment for one year got completed on 30.06.2021 and the second punishment of stoppage of annual increment for one year and two months got completed on 30.08.2020, due to which his application for voluntary retirement could not be considered and it does not deserve to be accepted.
5. The Tribunal allowed the original application and directed the petitioners to allow the request of the opposite party for grant of voluntary retirement on expiry of statutory period of 90 days with effect from 06.03.2021 and to pay him all retiral dues.
6. A review application filed by the petitioners was also rejected.
7. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for recall of the order dated 05.07.2024, wherein they raised this plea for the first time that the opposite party has not completed 22 years of qualifying service, which is a prerequisite for accepting the request for voluntary retirement as per the provisions contained in Clause 11.1 of the master circular.
8. The learned D.S.G.I. has submitted that the petitioner has remained unauthorizedly absent from service for a considerably long period of time and the effective service rendered by him is of 18 years 5 months and 24 days only. The period during which the opposite party remained unauthorizedly absent from duty cannot be treated as a period during which he was in service. He has next submitted that an Office Memorandum dated 26.02.2010 issued by the Government of India makes a mention of some orders issued by the Comptroller and Auditor General, which reads as under: -
“5. The consequences and procedure to be followed in respect of an officer who is absent from duty without any authority has been brought out under FR 17(1) and 17-A. As per FR 17-A(iii) without prejudice to the provisions of rule 27 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, remaining absent without any authority or deserting the post, shall be deemed to cause an interruption or break in the service of the employee, unless otherwise decided by the competent authority for the purpose of leave travel concession, quasi-permanency and eligibility for appearing in department examinations, for which a minimum period of continuous service is required.
6. Comptroller and Auditor General have issued orders that the period
Minor punishments do not negate eligibility for voluntary retirement; unauthorized absence does not affect completed service for retirement calculations.
The court reaffirmed that once an application for voluntary retirement is submitted and the conditions are met, it is deemed accepted unless explicitly rejected within the stipulated time, and prior ....
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 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....
The discretion to accept or reject voluntary retirement applications must be exercised judiciously, considering the employee's circumstances and not arbitrarily.
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
