MUNNI SHUKLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed by the petitioner who is widow of Shri Prern Shankar Shukia who was employee of the Northern Railways before his absorption in Indian Railways Construction Company (IRCON). The subject matter of these writ petitions is connected with each other and, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) CWP. No.396 of 2001 arises out of judgment, dated 24.11.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.2341/98. Late Shri Prem Shankar Shukia (hereinafter called 'the applicant') had primarily challenged his absorption in IRCON retrospectively i.e. w.e.f. 31.8.1994 by the respondents Railways vide Office Order dated 22.2.3989. It may be mentioned at this stage that the applicant while working as Electrical engineer in the Allahabad Division of Northern Railway had gone on deputation to IRCON on 17.8.1981 for a period of one year. This was extended further. He could remain on deputation for a maximum period of three years which period expired on 31.8.1984. The applicant had sought his absobtion with IRCON w.e.f. 33.8.1984 and requested his Parent Department, namely, Northern Railways i.e. the respondents herein for this purpose. The respondents took long time to consider his request and ultimately passed order dated 25.5.1993/3.6.1993 whereby the applicant's deemed retirement/absorption was treated to be effective from 31.8.1984. The applicant submitted that retirement/absorption could not be made from retrospective effect and his submission was that it should be treated that he is deemed to have retired from Railways w.e.f. 3.6.1993 and absorbed in IRCON on that date. The Tribunal did not accept this contention. The Tribunal relied upon its Full Bench Judgment in the case of Shri Vir Bhan Sood Vs. Union of India & Others - OA No.674/91 wherein after discussing various judgments the question raised before it was answered in the following terms :

(3.) The Tribunal held that even if there was a delay on the part of the authorities in accepting his resignation/deemed retirement, the same could be accepted with retrospect effect, relying upon the aforesaid Bench judgment. It further noted that the facts in the applicant's case were the same as in the case of Vir Bhan Sood's case (supra) by observing as under :