PHYSICAL RESEARCH LABORATORY Vs. PURSHOTTAM A VADHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Physical Research Laboratory which is a unit of Department of Space, Government of India and the Head, P&GA have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court allowing the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.4106 of 2004 filed by the respondent petitioner by directing the respondents present appellants to allow the original petitioner to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice dated 5th January, 2004 and quashing and setting aside the letter of acceptance of such notice.

(2.) The petitioner - Shri Purshottam A. Vadher was working as Assistant Administrative Officer with the Physical Research Laboratory (for short, 'PRL'). He had put in more than 30 years of service with the original respondents. He started his career as a Clerk from 16th September, 1972. From time to time, he earned promotions and lastly, he was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer from 1st September, 1992. His entire career of more than 30 years remained totally unblemished. As it happens at other places, he had some harassment from the original respondent no.2 in the year 2001 and when his turn came for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, his case was overlooked for which he had approached this court by way of Special Civil Application No.9355 of 2002, which is already pending before this court for final disposal. Any man who had put in more than 30 years of service is bound to be disturbed because of the harassment and feeling of injustice. The same thing happened with the original petitioner in this case also. He gave a notice dated 5th January, 2004 to the Director, PRL, Ahmedabad for voluntary retirement due to unavoidable circumstances and seeking permission to relieve him from service with effect from 5th April, 2004. Without wasting any time, the respondent no.2 Head P&GA took up the opportunity and immediately passed the order on that very day i.e. on January 5, 2004 of accepting the notice of voluntary retirement given by the original petitioner under the provisions of Rule 48-A (2) of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, 'the Rules') and ordered that he will be relieved from PRL service on voluntary retirement with effect from 6th April, 2004 (F/N). The petitioner was also asked to fill in the enclosed set of pension papers and submit the same to his office for further necessary action. The same was received by the original petitioner on 6th January, 2004. Immediately on the 3rd day i.e. on 8th January, 2004, the original petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to supply Rule 48-A (2) of the Rules but the same was not made available to him till 25th March, 2004.

(3.) From the facts narrated hereinabove, it is clear that the original petitioner was mentally disturbed because of the feeling of injustice meted out to him and some harassment from the higher authority. Therefore, he gave voluntary retirement notice dated January 5, 2004 but within a period of one week i.e. on 13th January, 2004, when he became calm, cool and composed, then, considering his personal as well as family reasons namely that his old parents and wife and daughter to be maintained by him etc., he sought withdrawal of his notice dated 5th January, 2004 of voluntary retirement. Accordingly, by a letter dated 13th January, 2004 (Annexure-D to the main petition), he requested the Director, PRL to allow him to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement and treat the same as cancelled and that he was not in a position to submit any forms for pension papers. It seems that to get rid of the petitioner by accepting his notice of voluntary retirement on the same day i.e. 5th January, 2004, the original respondents did not even reply to his letter of withdrawal of voluntary retirement. Therefore, he was obliged to send reminder dated 11th February, 2004. The same also remained unreplied. Therefore, one more reminder dated 8th March, 2004 was written. Then by a letter dated 17th March, 2004, he requested the Director to allot him work but the original respondents did not even bother to reply to it. He was running against the time as he was to be relieved from service from 6th April, 2004 as per the order dated January 5, 2004 (Annexure-B to the main writ petition), therefore, he approached this court on 01st April, 2004 by way of Special Civil Application No.4106 of 2004.