SANJAY KAUSHIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 4/10/2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT) dismissing the O.A. No. 2947/2019 filed by the petitioner against the order dtd. 31/7/2019 passed by Respondent no.1, whereby the petitioner's request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement was rejected. Petitioner also seeks direction to the Respondents to accept the Petitioner's request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement and to reinstate the Petitioner.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner had joined as an Assistant in Delhi Administration on 21/7/1980. In the month of June, 2011, the petitioner was promoted to the Entry Grade of DANICS and was transferred to Andaman & Nicobar Islands by the Ministry of Home Affairs (hereinafter referred to as "MHA"), and was relieved in February, 2012. Petitioner claims that due to serious medical condition of his mother, the petitioner remained on leave in Delhi between 16/10/2012 and 3/12/2012. Petitioner also claims that while at Port Blair, he was informed about an immediate and emergent surgery of his mother at Delhi. Pursuant to the said news, the petitioner claims to be depressed and in utter confusion about his next move and requested for voluntary retirement on 12/12/2012 with effect from 13/3/2013. Simultaneously, the petitioner also sought transfer to Delhi so as to ensure that all his post retiral benefits could be easily accessible and availed of in the city of Delhi, of which he was an ordinary resident. On 8/3/2013, the petitioner also submitted an undertaking and an affidavit reiterating his request for voluntary retirement to be effective from 18/3/2013 as a condition precedent for his transfer to Delhi. On 11/3/2013, the petitioner was transferred to Delhi and after acceptance of his resignation by the Competent Authority, the voluntary retirement was made effective from 18/3/2013.

(3.) After a passage of almost two weeks, the petitioner by the letter dtd. 1/4/2013 sought permission to withdraw the request for voluntary retirement under certain circumstances. This request was rejected on 4/6/2013 by respondent no.1. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a review representation which too was dismissed on 17/4/2015. The petitioner challenged the said rejection on 6/11/2015 by filing OA No.4219/2015 before the learned CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The said OA was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dtd. 25/4/2019. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6040/2019 which was disposed of by the order dtd. 28/5/2019 by this Court directing respondent no.1 to consider the petitioner's case for grant of relaxation under Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short Pension Rules) on its own merits. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation dtd. 10/6/2019 which too was rejected by respondent no.1 on 31/7/2019. Though the petitioner had preferred an application against the said order dtd. 31/7/2019 in WP(C) No.6040/2019, this Court had directed the petitioner to agitate the same before the learned CAT as it would constitute a new cause of action. Following the said directions, the petitioner preferred OA No.2947/2019 before the learned CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi assailing the order dtd. 31/7/2019 passed by respondent no.1.