(1.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. 4162 of 2010 dated 5th March, 2012, ("impugned order") has preferred this petition. The impugned order directs the petitioner to:
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent/applicant, having worked with the appellant, by a letter of 31st August, 2007 sought voluntary retirement after completing twenty two years of service. The genesis of this request lay in the petitioner's need to respond to his letter of appointment for the post of FS -4 from the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor -Leste which he had received a few weeks prior thereto. The said letter required him to convey his acceptance within seven days from the date it was issued, i.e. 18th July, 2007. By a letter of 20th July, 2007, he sought the requisite permission to accept the offer of appointment and by another letter of 13th August, 2007 he reiterated his request. Sensing that the time available with him was very little, by a letter dated 31st August, 2007 he requested for voluntary retirement with effect from the next day, i.e., 1st September, 2007. He felt he was eligible to invoke this option under the applicable Service Rules, i.e. after the completion of twenty two years of service. He also stated that if for any reason the application for voluntary retirement was not acceptable, then the letter may be treated as notice for resignation from government service with immediate effect. He then proceeded to join the United Nations' service. Vigilance clearance was accorded to him on 25th July, 2007. His resignation was accepted with effect from 12th September, 2007.
(3.) IN the present impugned order, the Tribunal has considered whether the respondent/applicant would be entitled under Rule 48 -A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and reasoned that although it required three months' notice in writing to the appointing authority to retire voluntarily from the service, there was urgency in this case and that the respondent/applicant had already requested more than forty days earlier, i.e., on 20 th July, 2007, seeking to be relieved so that he could join the United Nations Mission, but the appellant / government failed to respond. That it was out of exasperation that the letter of resignation was written. Indeed, the Additional Secretary (Admin), MEA, had noted in the official file on 31st August, 2007: "He came to see me to request that he be given a sympathetic hearing. I do not know if there is any constraint in relieving him, if there is a way without infringing any regulations, and would request that it be done". The Tribunal reasoned that the resignation had to be clear and unconditional. It held the respondent/applicant's letter to be a conditional resignation and relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 141 and Dr. Praba Atri v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2003) 1 SCC 701. In those cases, the Supreme Court had set aside the communication purporting to accept the resignations concerned. The Tribunal held that although the circumstances in the present case may be different, but the law in Dr. Praba Atri's case (supra) would hold the field and would apply. Further relying on the ratio in Yashwant Hari Katakkar v UOI, (1996) 7 SCC 113 the Tribunal reasoned that in this case too, the government should favourably consider the grant of retiral benefits, since the respondent/applicant had already put in more than twenty two years of qualifying service. The Tribunal found that the respondent/applicant had applied forty days earlier (to the letter of voluntary retirement cum resignation) for permission to join the United Nations Mission and in any case the government had twelve clear days to decide the application for voluntary retirement before it accepted on 12th September, 2007 the offer of resignation. Therefore, the argument of the government that only one day's notice was given for responding to the respondent/applicant's letter was found untenable and the order dated 9th June, 2010, though speaking, was considered arbitrary and was accordingly quashed.