UNION OF INDIA BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAYS, THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER AND THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAYS, MYSORE DIVISION Vs. SRI M. BHANUPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 1.3.2.010 in O.A. No. 372/2009, is called in question in this writ petition. The records reveal that the respondent herein who was working as a Clerk with South -Western Railways tendered his application for voluntary retirement after 20 years of service on 25.7.2007 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 10.8.2007 without requesting to waive of the notice period. On receipt of such application for voluntary retirement dated 25.7.2007, the employer treated the said application as three months' notice and instructed the respondent that three months' notice period will be counted from 25.7.2007, which means that the petitioners have intimated the respondent that his application for voluntary retirement is treated as three months' notice as contemplated under Rule 67 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 ('Rules' for short).

(2.) THE respondent having waited for three months from 25.7.2007, made an application on 25.10.2007 intimating the petitioners that he will not be attending duties from 26.10.2007. By the very letter dated 25.10.2007, the respondent requested the petitioners to settle all the pensionary benefits. Since the pensionary benefits are not accorded, he approached Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 372/2009, which came to be allowed by the impugned order. Admittedly, the application for voluntary retirement is filed by the respondent on 25.7.2007. Under Rule 67 of the Rules, three months' notice has to be given in writing to the appointing authority requesting the appointing authority to permit the employee to retire voluntarily. The relevant Rule relating to voluntary retirement and with regard to acceptance of application for voluntary retirement reads thus: -

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, however submits that the action of the respondent in withdrawing his earlier application filed in O.A. No. 309/2008 for the very relief operates res judicata, and therefore the respondent is not entitled to the relief in the present application, i.e., O.A. No. 372/2009.