REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

UNION OF INDIA Appellant

V/S

Sanohar Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

JAI RAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GOPAL CHANDRA MISRA [REFERRED TO]
P KASILINGAM VS. P S G COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. BROJO NATH GANGULY / TARUN KANTI SENGUPTA [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. P K MITTAL [REFERRED TO]
J K COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. MAHARANI KAM SUNDRI [REFERRED TO]
POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED VS. PRAMOD KUMAR BHATIA [REFERRED TO]
J N SRIVASTAVA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NAND KESHWAR PRASAD VS. INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS COOPERATIVE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. WING COMMANDER T PARTHASARATHY [REFERRED TO]
SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA VS. PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KLE SOCIETY VS. R R PATIL [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF INDIA VS. O P SWARANKAR [REFERRED TO]
P LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, dated 29th January, 2003, by which the claim of the respondent No. 1 has been accepted and the order of acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement has been quashed.

(2.) FACTS are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 employee, made an application on 8.6.2000 for voluntary retirement w.e.f, 20.6.2000. It was accepted by the authorities on 13th June, 2000. However, prior to 20th June, 2000, application for withdrawal was filed and it was received by the petitioner employer, but the said application was rejected vide order dated 24th June, 2000. Feeling aggrieved he filed an application before the Tribunal on 30th September, 2000, which has been accepted. Hence, this petition.

(3.) ON the contrary, Shri Kamlesh Kumar Tewari, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that if the retirement was to be effective with a prospective date the applicant has a right to withdraw prior to the said order of acceptance becomes effective. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order and petition is liable to be dismissed.

Click here to view full judgment.

UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANOHAR

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address