'Petitioner's Voluntary Retirement Could Not Be Cancelled After Being Accepted By Respondents Once', Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that the Petitioner's voluntary retirement could not have been cancelled after it was accepted in the first place. The Bench held that the Respondents could at their best have rejected his application for postponement of the date of his voluntary retirement but cancelling the voluntary retirement was highly uncalled for. Background The Petitioner, an officer in the CRPF underwent a kidney transplant surgery on 02.05.2016 due to Kidney Failure. On 30.07.2020, he was transferred to GC, CRPF, Nagpur. Owing to his medical condition, he requested to be posted at Delhi on medical grounds. His request was rejected on 07.09.2020 resulting in a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner which was dismissed on 11.09.2020. On 05.03.2021, the Petitioner submitted an application for his voluntary retirement with effect from 30.06.2021 since he could not join his duties because of the surgery. The Respondents accepted the application on 10.06.2021. Later the Petitioner claimed that he could not complete all the formalities for the release of his pension because he received the Order of the Respondents late. Therefore, on 24.06.2021, he requested for the change of retirement date from 30.06.2021 to 31.07.2021. The Respondents rejected the Application on 30.06.2021 and he was directed to report for duty at GC Nagpur. The Order of rejection was passed by Deputy Inspector General (Administration). Pertinently, on 29.06.2021, the Petitioner also tried to enter the office of the Directorate General forcibly along with his wife without being authorised to do so, creating nuisance. The Petitioner by an email on the same date showed his medical fitness certificate requesting to be allowed to join his duties in the Directorate owing to being fit and ready to resume duties. However, he was asked to report to GC Nagpur. The Petitioner did not join the services at GC Nagpur and remained absent from duty. Consequently, his voluntary retirement was also cancelled. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2021, the Petitioner approached the High Court challenging the same. He sought directions upon the Respondents to consider that the Petitioner gave voluntary retirement from his service with effect from 30.06.2021. He also challenged the departmental proceedings initiated against him dismissing him from service by an order dated 11.07.2022. Findings of the Court: The Court passed an Order on 24.07.2024 and observed that the matter needed to be reconsidered by the Respondents on compassionate grounds. The Court observed that since the Petitioner had been in service for more than 30 years, the Respondents should not have acted in such haste while rejecting his request for postponement of the date of his voluntary retirement by one month. Citing the medical condition of the Petitioner, the Court also observed that the Respondents should have considered the Petitioner's bad health before proceeding to hold a departmental enquiry against him. Accordingly, the Respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement within a period of eight weeks. On the next date of hearing, the Counsel for the Respondents produced the Speaking Order dated 30.10.2024 issued by the DIG, CRPF by which the Petitioner's request for postponement of voluntary retirement was rejected. The Counsel submitted that as per the order dated 30-10-2024, the Petitioner's request for voluntary request was already accepted but later he conveyed that he was in a position to resume his duties. The Counsel stated that the Petitioner could not have been considered for voluntary retirement because he did not cite the reasons for the same after expressly mentioning that he was fit to resume the services. The Court held that the Respondent had only asked for the postponement of his voluntary retirement and it could be assumed that he would earn one increment if the application for postponement was allowed. It was held that there were not enough grounds for the Respondents to cancel the voluntary retirement of the Petitioner considering it was already been accepted. The Bench held that the Respondents could have cancelled the Petitioner's application seeking postponement of the Voluntary Retirement and the Petitioner's retirement could have been considered with effect from 30.06.2021. Accordingly, the Court directed the Respondents to consider the voluntary retirement with effect from 30.06.2021 and also quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner for not reporting to his new place of posting. Case Title: BAIKUNTHA NATH DAS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORSCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1339 Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Ankit Negi, Adv. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Kavindra Gill, SPC with Mr. Ajay Pal, Law Officer and Mr....

'Petitioner's Voluntary Retirement Could Not Be Cancelled After Being Accepted By Respondents Once', Delhi High Court

Syed Nazarat Fatima

Tags