Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1001 (HP)

Desh Raj Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-06-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. The appellant has assailed the judgment rendered by the learned writ Court, whereby his claim for quashing the order dated 9.2.2011 came to be rejected. 2. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner on 31.1.2011 made a request to the respondents seeking premature retirement for the reasons that he met with an accident, resulting in non functioning of his left arm and also on account of adverse family circumstances. The appellant after realizing the consequences vide letter dated 9.2.2011, sought withdrawal of his request, which according to the respondents was not accepted, as his request seeking premature retirement vide letter dated 31.1.2011 stood accepted by the respondents earlier on 9.2.2011 itself. The learned writ Court dismissed the petition by concluding that the application for premature retirement made by the appellant already stood accepted before the receipt of request for withdrawal of the same. Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant has filed the instant appeal on various grounds as set out in the grounds of appeal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 3. In order to satisfy ourselves regarding the stand taken by the respondents that they had accepted the request of the petitioner for premature retirement on 9.2.2011, we on 29.2.2016 directed the respondents to keep available the records at the time of hearing. 4. It is evident from the records that the request of the appellant seeking premature retirement stands entered at Sr. No. 828 dated 3.2.2011 of the diary register. The application moved by the appellant for withdrawal of the request for voluntary retirement made on 9.2.2011 and is entered at Sr. No. 967 dated 9.2.2011. Entry in the peon book shows that office order dated 9.2.2011 was sent through peon and received by the appellant/petitioner on 10.2.2011 at 12.00 P.M. 5. Apparently, the case of the appellant till 9.2.2011 was being examined, but in noting dated 9.2.2011, it has been mentioned that the request of the appellant for premature retirement has already been accepted by the HOD on the PUC itself on 1.2.2011. This noting is irreconcilable with the defence taken by the respondents, wherein they themselves have admitted that the competent authority had accepted the request of voluntary retirement on 9.2.2011. This is clearly evident from para 1 of the reply, which reads thus:- “1. This noting is irreconcilable with the defence taken by the respondents, wherein they themselves have admitted that the competent authority had accepted the request of voluntary retirement on 9.2.2011. This is clearly evident from para 1 of the reply, which reads thus:- “1. It is true that petitioner has applied for voluntary retirement vide his application dated 31.01.2011 Annexure R-1 and the same was accepted vide order dated 9th February, 2011 Annexure R-2. Petitioner has applied for voluntary retirement citing the reason of his inability to discharge his duties due to the accident. Petitioner has submitted the application for voluntary retirement without any pressure and fear and the same was accepted under the Rules.” 6. Similar averments are thereafter reiterated in para 4 of the reply. Thus, it is evident that some mischief down the line had definitely been played. Be that as it may be, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the appellant was communicated the decision regarding rejection of his application for voluntary retirement, rather it is borne out from the record that the application filed by the appellant for withdrawal of his request for voluntary retirement had been received by the respondents and was already pending, before the impugned decision had been taken by the respondents. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, it would also be noticed that it is the specific case of the appellant that his wife had visited the office of respondent No. 2 on 8.2.2011 and thereafter on 9.2.2011 and had apprised him about the condition of the petitioner and his intention to withdraw his application for premature retirement. This fact is admitted by the respondents in their reply and otherwise stands established on record from the gate passes annexed with the petition as Anenxures P-4 and P-5, respectively. Thus, it is proved on record that respondent No. 2 was fully aware of the intention of the appellant regarding withdrawal of his request for premature retirement, yet for some strange reasons, he ensured that the appellant’s request is not acceded to. Thus, it is proved on record that respondent No. 2 was fully aware of the intention of the appellant regarding withdrawal of his request for premature retirement, yet for some strange reasons, he ensured that the appellant’s request is not acceded to. Therefore, in such circumstances, to say the least, the conduct of respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be “fair” as he virtually left no stone unturned to ensure that the office order dated 9.2.2011 is issued, thereby rejecting the request of the appellant for voluntary retirement without even caring for the request of withdrawal submitted earlier by the appellant on 9.2.2011 itself. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The judgment passed by the learned writ Court is set aside and consequently the writ petition is allowed, as prayed for, leaving the parties to bear their costs.