Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1001
-CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Transfer Application No. 4584/2021
Reserved on – 27.01.2025
Pronounced on: - 28.02.2025
HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
Rashpal Singh Age 45 Yrs
S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh
R/o Ranjan Tehsil and Distt. Jammu. ...Petitioner
(By Advocate: Mr. M R Qureshi)
Versus
1. State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary to
Govt. PHE Irrigation and Flood Control Department Civil Secretariat
Jammu /Srinagar.
2. Commissioner Secretary to Administration Department Govt.
General Administrative Department.
3. Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Jammu.
4. Executive Engineer PHE Division Akhnoor
5. Asstt. Executive Engineer PHE Sub. Division Bhalwal
Jammu. ..Respondents
(By Advocate: - Mr. Dewakar Sharma, DAG)
Mr. M R Qureshi, Mr. Dewakar Sharma, DAG
An employee's withdrawal of voluntary retirement must be substantiated by proof; without it, the retirement order remains valid.
Headnote:(A) Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations - Article 230 - Voluntary retirement - The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement and later sought to withdraw the application prior to acceptance. The Tribunal held that without proof of the withdrawal request, the retirement order stands valid. (Paras 3-14)
(B) Procedural fairness - An employee can withdraw a voluntary retirement application before it is formally accepted, but the burden of proof lies on the employee to substantiate the claim of withdrawal. (Paras 10-13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Pump Driver, sought voluntary retirement to contest elections but later requested to withdraw this application before the order was issued. The government proceeded with the retirement without acknowledging the withdrawal.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found no evidence of the withdrawal application being submitted or received by the department, thus upholding the retirement order.
Issues: Whether the petitioner submitted a timely withdrawal request and if the respondents erred in not considering it.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner to show the withdrawal request was made and received, which he failed to do.
Result: The TA is dismissed.
ORDER
Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member
1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 180/2009 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/4584/2021 by the Registry of this Tribunal.
2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:
a) “Writ of Certiorari so as to set aside and quash order no. 426-PW (Hyd.) of 2008 dated 03.12.2008.
b) Writ of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity and seniority with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.”
3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The petitioner, Rashpal Singh, was serving as a Pump Driver in the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Division, Akhnoor, and was recognized as a dedicated and honest employee. In the year 2008, he applied for voluntary retirement in order to contest the Assembly Elections of 2008-09, submitting an application on 07-11-2008, which was forwarded through proper channels to the competent authority.
b) However, on 27-11-2008, before any final decision was made on his initial application, the petitioner submitted another application to the Chief Engineer, PHE Department, Jammu, requesting withdrawal of his voluntary retirement application, expressing his desire to continue serving until superannuation.
c) Despite this, no action was taken on his withdrawal request. Subsequently, the Government, without considering his withdrawal application and in a hasty manner, passed an order under Govt. Order No. 426-PW(Hyd.) of 2008 dated 03-12-2008, retiring him from service voluntarily.
d) The petitioner contends that this order was passed in contravention of Article 230 of the J&K CSR Volume 1. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the impugned retirement order dated 03-12-2008 and seeking relief.
4. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) The respondents have submitted that the petitioner, while serving as a Pump Driver in the Public Health Engineering (PHE) Division, Akhnoor, applied for voluntary retirement on 07-11-2008 to contest the Assembly Elections for the year 2008-09. However, he later filed another application on 27-11- 2008 seeking withdrawal of his voluntary retirement application, stating that he no longer wished to contest the election and intended to serve the department until superannuation.
b) On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the respondents, has contended that the department never received any application dated 27-11-2008 for withdrawal of the voluntary retirement request. The respondents maintain that the premature retirement was granted solely on the basis of the petitioner’s initial request for voluntary retirement, which was accepted by the Government under Order No. 426-PW(Hyd.) of 2008 dated 03-12-2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the Hon’ble Court to direct the respondents to produce the original record, specifically the receipt of the withdrawal application, to verify whether such a request was indeed made and received.
c) In response, the learned Deputy Advocate General has fairly submitted that a supplementary affidavit will be filed regarding the existence of the application dated 27-11-2008. If any record is available, it will also be placed on record along with the affidavit.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the withdrawal application was submitted within the prescribed time and prior to the formal acceptance of voluntary retirement, the respondents were duty-bound to consider it. He contends that the retirement order was passed in a hasty and arbitrary manner, in contravention of procedural fairness, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner.
7. The respondents, on the other han
