UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this case relate to the effect of application for voluntary retirement submitted under Rule 48 of the CCS Pension Rules, but withdrawn before the stipulated date and it is actually accepted. The petitioners have also raised the issue of limitation in filing OA by the respondent herein before the Tribunal which according to the petitioner has not been rightly decided, as the OA was time barred. The facts are simple and largely remain undisputed. The respondent herein was working as LDC with the petitioner and had rendered 30 years of service when he submitted the application dated 31.08.2006 seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 30.11.2006. He stated that he was under depression on account of ailment of diabetic high blood pressure and cardiac problem. Before this application of the respondent containing proposal for voluntary retirement could be accepted, the petitioner had a mind -change, which resulted in making another request by the respondent to the petitioner in the form of letter dated 10.10.2006 deciding to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement. The petitioners considered his request for withdrawal and rejected the same vide Office Order 29.11.2006. His initial request for voluntary retirement was, thus, accepted and he was retired on 31.11.2006. He made a representation in this regard, which was also turned down.

(2.) THE respondent, therefore, approached the Tribunal and he filed OA No. 581/2008 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act on 27.02.2008. He challenged the rejection of his request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement and contended that since he had withdrawn his request, he could not have been retired on 30.11.2006. The petitioners herein filed detailed counter reply contesting the aforesaid plea of the respondent. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Tribunal vide its judgment dated 15.12.2008 has allowed the OA by setting aside the impugned order holding that the respondent is deemed to be in service with effect from 30.11.2006 and shall be entitled to all consequences including back wages, seniority promotion and the intervening period to be treated as qualifying service for pension.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that plea of limitation was raised by the petitioners herein, which has not been decided. On this ground, normally we could have remitted the case back to the Tribunal. However, counsel for both the parties submitted that this issue may be decided by this Court itself as it is based on admitted factual position on record. We, therefore, proceed to discuss this in the first instance.