UNION OF INDIA Vs. DARSHAN KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner, Union of India, prays for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.04.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal).

(2.) The brief facts leading to the present writ petition are that the respondent joined M.E.S., Ministry of Defence as Assistant Executive Engineer on 27.03.1971. Later on, he was promoted as Executive Engineer and at the relevant point of time he was placed in the selection grade of Superintending Engineer. According to the respondent, he completed 25 years 4 months of regular service and deemed to have 30 years 4 months qualifying service as required under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and was also more than 50 years of age. In terms of CSR 459 (i) read with Rule 48 of CCS Rules the respondents served the petitioner with three months notice to the President of India expressing his intention to retire on the expiry of the period specified thereof, i.e., 30.10.1996. The said request was, however, rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 31.10.1996.

(3.) Aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A. No.1062/98 before the Tribunal. By order dated 18.07.2000, the Tribunal dismissed the said OA. Against the said order, the respondent filed CW No.5349/2000 in this Court. While allowing the writ petition, this court observed as under: Keeping in view the aforementioned pronouncement we are of the view that once the petitioner has exercised his statutory right in terms of Article 459(1), question of acceptance thereof did not arise and the petitioner stood relieved w.e.f. 31.10.1996. We make it clear that we have not entered into the question as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to take benefit of CCS Pension Rules or not. Before parting with the case, we may notice that the petitioner after service of notice offered to retire voluntarily and did not report for duty w.e.f. 01.01.1996, therefore, a show cause notice was issued. Keeping in view the fact that in law the petitioner was entitled to retire w.e.f. 31.10.1996, we are of the opinion that issuance of the aforementioned show cause notice would not stand in the way of the petitioner retiring voluntarily w.e.f. 01.01.1996. The petition is allowed and the order dated 31.10.1996 is quashed. No order as to costs. We may, however, further observe that as we have not considered as to whether provisions of Rule 48 and 48A would apply in the case of the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his other remedy for claiming retiral benefits in accordance with law.