DEVI RAM Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6th July, 2000. The Tribunal has held against the petitioner and has distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balram Gupta vs. UOI, 1987 Supp. SCC 228 and J.N. Srivastava vs. Union of India and Anr., (1998) 9 SCC 559, on the ground that the withdrawal of the voluntary retirement by the petitioner was conditional and he sought permission to continue in Delhi instead of joining the office of the respondent at Bhubaneswar as undertaken earlier. The relevant position of law in J.N. Srivastava's judgment (supra) reads as follows:-

(3.) A perusal of the record produced by the respondent themselves reveals that the letter dated 26th November, 1998 contains no such condition imposed by the petitioner that he will not join office at Bhubaneswar but in Delhi as sought to be contended by the respondent. In fact an office order of the respondent dated 3rd December, 1998 reads as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_96_ILRDLH16_2007Html1.htm</FRM>