MANUWAR KHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Khalasi in the Indian Railways in the year 1979. On 21.5.2001 the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement. When the application for voluntary retirement was not decided, he filed an Original Application 1286 of 2002 before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was disposed of with a direction for deciding the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. The said claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent no.2 on 4.1.2003. Challenging the same the petitioner filed Original Application No. 361 of 2003 which has been dismissed by the Tribunal on 12.4.2010. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) We have heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri K.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties we dispose of this writ petition at the admission stage itself.

(3.) The undisputed facts of the case are that though the petitioner remained in service from 6.10.1979 to 21.5.2001 but his actual period of working was only 6 years 7 months and 4 days. For the remaining period of 15 years and 11 days, the petitioner had remained on leave, which according to the petitioner was extraordinary leave on medical grounds. The case of the petitioner is that in terms of Rule 36 of the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993 the extraordinary leave granted on medical grounds shall be counted as qualifying service. In support of his submission that the petitioner was granted extraordinary leave on medical grounds, the petitioner though, has not filed any such order granting him such extraordinary leave on medical grounds but relies on paragraph 5 of the counter reply filed by the Railway Administration before the Central Administrative Tribunal in his Original Application No. 361 of 2003. For the same he further relies on an order dated 4.1.2003, whereby, his claim application for grant of voluntary retirement had been rejected.