VIKRAM SARABHAI SPACE CENTRE Vs. RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNION of India and others challenge the decision and resultant directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the respondent's plea that his request for withdrawal of notice given by him for retirement on completion of 20 years' of qualifying service ought to have been accepted by the establishment.

(2.) WORKING as a Scientist/Engineer SG and holding the designation - Deputy General Manager, Inertial Systems Electronics Production, ISRO - Inertial System Unit, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, the respondent submitted on 22.07.2010, a notice of his voluntary retirement with effect from 15.11.2010. The Department of Space in the Government of India conveyed to the ISRO & VSSC, on 09.09.2110, its approval for acceptance of that notice of voluntary retirement submitted by the respondent. That was received by the Senior Head, Personnel and General Administration, VSSC, Thiruvananthapuram, on 11.11.2010. On that day, i.e. 11.11.2010, the respondent submitted a letter to the Director, VSSC, stating that he proposes to withdraw his application opting for voluntary retirement. Annexure A8 to Exhibit P3 shows that on 11.11.2010 itself, the Director, VSSC, endorsed on that notice that since relieving order is already issued by the Department the Space, it is not possible to consider the withdrawal notice now. It is evident from Annexure R2 to Exhibit P2 that respondent's withdrawal notice dated 11.11.2010 was sent up to the Department of Space, which, in turn, examined that request and informed the Director, VSSC, on 15.11.2010 that the withdrawal of respondent's notice of voluntary retirement has not been accepted by the Department. VSSC was thereby directed to take further necessary action to relieve the respondent of his duties with effect from 15.11.2010 FN. Consequentially, non- acceptance of the respondent's request for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement notice was intimated to him as per communication dated 03.12.2010. That was challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal. As per the impugned Exhibit P5 order, the Tribunal allowed the respondent's original application and directed the establishment to pass suitable orders for his reinstatement and to treat the period of his absence as on duty with allowances. It is also ordered that the period shall also count for working out increment admissible to him.

(3.) IMPEACHING the impugned order, it is argued on behalf of the establishment that the Tribunal acted contrary to law in passing it without appreciating the spirit of the rule that applies and without noting that no reason whatsoever was shown by the respondent for the withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement, for the satisfaction/consideration of the competent authority. It is argued that the Tribunal erred in law in assuming that the reason for refusal of withdrawal is that contained in the endorsement made by the Director, VSCC, on the respondent's request for withdrawal of the notice of voluntary retirement. It is pointed out that the said endorsement contains only the Director's observations or recommendations while forwarding the respondent's representation to the competent authority, and that, the final decision on the request of the respondent seeking withdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement was taken by the competent authority. It is also pointed out that the Tribunal erred in failing to appreciate the fact that the vacancy which arose consequent on the respondent's voluntary retirement has been filled up by the establishment, following due procedure. It is argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the impugned directions; much after the respondent's voluntary retirement took effect.