Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 843 (PAT)

Hari Prakash Chawla v. Union Of India

2000-07-06

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2000
Judgment 1. The petitioner who was in the services of Railway Protection Force was transferred against which he preferred appeal, The appeal having rejected on 9th July, 1996 the petitioner gave notice for voluntary retirement to the Chief Security Commissioner, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur on 10th July, 1996. After such notice, the Respondent did not choose to pass any specific order either accepting or rejecting the prayer for voluntary retirement, but by their letter dated 18th September, 1996, the petitioner was informed that the application can be entertained only on his joining to the transferred place. At that stage, the petitioner moved this court by filing a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 4972/97 for his voluntary retirement. While the writ petition was pending, the Respondents initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner for unauthorised absent (sicabsence?) from duty and ultimately punished the petitioner, vide order dated 2.3.1998 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. 2. Earlier the writ petition for voluntary retirement (C.W.J.C. No. 4972/77) was dismissed by this Court against which one LP.A. No. 395/99 was preferred by the petitioner. Because of such pendency of the case and earlier when this case was taken up, it was adjourned. 3. During the pendency of the present case, said L.P.A. No. 395/99 preferred by the petitioner has been disposed of vide order and judgment dated 9th March, 2000. Therein, the Division Bench passed the following order : "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we put it to the State counsel as to why the State should insist upon the appellant working under the Government where he is unwilling worker. Counsel for the appellant submitted that he will not claim any monetary benefit for the period subsequent to the date of his application for grant of voluntary retirement except that which is permissible to him under the Pension Rules in a case where such voluntary retirement is permitted by the Government. Counsel for the State states that the State will have no objection if the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be considered to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from the date on which the period of three months expired after his making an application for voluntary retirement. Counsel for the State states that the State will have no objection if the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be considered to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from the date on which the period of three months expired after his making an application for voluntary retirement. This is on the strict understanding that the appellant shall not claim any service benefit for the period subsequent to the date on which he filed his application for grant of voluntary retirement because admittedly he had not worked thereafter. This, however, will be without prejudice to any weightage which is admissible to him under the Pension Rules in case of voluntary retirement. This L.P.A. is accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above." 4. In view of such understanding given before this Court and observationsmade by the Division Bench on 9th March, 2000, the petitioner having given notice for voluntary retirement on 10th July, 1996, he will be deemed to have voluntarily retired on completion of three months notice period with effect from 10th October 96. 5. in the circumstances, the impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 2nd March, 1996 is to be treated as redundant, the same having passed after due date of voluntary retirement of petitioner (i.e. 10th March, 1996). The said order of 2nd March 1998 is accordingly set aside. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.