CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Original Application No.060/103/2024 Pronounced on: 24.11.2025 Reserved on: 03.11.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

----

Parveen Kumar son of Sh. Ram Sarup, aged about 57 Years, resident of House No. 2387, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh, remained working as Peon in the office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh and retired by the respondent No. 3 from Govt. Service w.e.f. 04.09.2023.

... Applicant By Advocate: Mr. D.P. Singh Versus

1. Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory Chandigarh through its Secretary Labour, UT, Chandigarh Administration.

2. Deputy Commissioner cum Labour Commissioner, UT. Chandigarh, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

3. Assistant Labour Commissioner, UT., Chandigarh Sector 30-B, Chandigarh.

Digitally ... .Respondents By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Thakur

O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

(i) The impugned order dated 29.08.2023 (A-3) passed by respondent no. 2, accepting the notice of voluntary retirement, which has already been withdrawn and the order dated 04.09.2023 (A-4), passed by respondent no. 3, relieving the applicant by retiring him from Government service w.e.f. 04.09.2023 may be quashed / set aside and the applicant may be treated as in service since the date he had wrongly and arbitrarily been retired and be treated entitled to the grant of financial service benefits.

ii) The directions be issued to the respondents to take the applicant on duty and treat the applicant in service since the date he had wrongly and arbitrarily been retired and relieved of his duties w.e.f. 04.09.2023 and the applicant be treated entitled to the grant of financial service benefits for the above said period the applicant has wrongly and forcedly kept away from his service.

Digitally 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant joined service as WADHWA a Peon, a Group „D‟ post, on 08.12.2000 in the office of respondent No.

3 and had an unblemished service record of about twenty-two years as on 05.06.2023. Under Rule 48(A)(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, a Government servant who has completed twenty years of qualifying service may retire voluntarily by giving a notice of not less than three months to the appointing authority. Being eligible under the said provision, the applicant submitted his notice dated 05.06.2023 to respondent No. 2, the appointing authority, seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 04.09.2023 upon completion of the three-month notice period.

3. The applicant thereafter submitted an application dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure A-2) addressed to respondent No. 3, seeking withdrawal of his earlier notice dated 05.06.2023. The withdrawal request was submitted well within the prescribed period of the three- month notice, which was to expire on 04.09.2023. The said application was duly received and diarized in the office of respondent No. 2. Upon such withdrawal, no subsisting notice for voluntary retirement remained on record, and it became obligatory for the respondents to act in accordance with the service rules and give effect to the withdrawal. However, the respondents failed to take any action on the said request and arbitrarily ignored the withdrawal application dated 29.08.2023 without conveying any decision to the applicant.

4. Despite the above, respondent No. 2 proceeded to pass Office Order No. 35 dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure A-3), whereby the three- month notice for voluntary retirement was accepted and made effective from the last date of the notice period, i.e., 04.09.2023. Pursuant to the Digitally signed by said acceptance order, the Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh (respondent No. 3), issued a relieving order dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure A-4), relieving the applicant from service w.e.f. 04.09.2023, treating him as voluntarily retired on the basi