UNION OF INDIA Vs. R A PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Standing counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Ram Lagan Mishra learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the constitution of India against the impugned order dated 28.8.2000 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) passed in O.A. No. 879 of 1993 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow whereby application moved by the claimant respondent has been allowed with regard to voluntary retirement.

(3.) The brief facts of the present controversy relates to the circumstances when petitioner has moved an application on 14.5.1993 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.8.1993. However, claimant respondent withdrawn the application with regard to voluntary retirement on 27.8.1993. According to the petitioner's counsel, it was accepted on 26.8.1993. Claimant-respondents had approached the Tribunal with the prayer that since, application was moved for withdrawal of voluntary retirement before 31.8.1993 and even after acceptance master and servant relationship continues up to 31.8.1993, there was no option before the petitioner except to accept the withdrawal application moved by the claimant-respondent on 27.8.1993. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that since, the claimant was in service up to 31.8.1993, the withdrawal application moved by the respondent before 31.8.1993 should have been accepted and application for voluntary retirement should be treated as withdrawn. The tribunal had relied upon Apex court judgements reported in Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India, 1987 Supp1 SCC 228 and another followed by one another judgement reported in Balbir Singh Negi Vs. Union of India and others, 1996 8 SCC 283.