IDRISH AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 28.11.1996 passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the voluntary retirement of the petitioner has been accepted w.e.f. 29.1.1996 and the order dated 9.3.2000 whereby the respondent No. 2 has passed the order that the petitioner's voluntary retirement should be effective from 28.11.1996.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Octroi Moharrir in the year 1972 under the respondent No. 3. The petitioner has stated that he fell ill on 29.1.1996 and went on medical leave. Me was directed by an order dated 28.2.1996 to get himself medically examined by the Chief Medical Officer Bhadohi. However, on 25.9.1996, the petitioner was declared medically fit and he joined his duties on 26.9.1996. He was deputed for election duty on 29.9.1996 and 30.9.1996 whereafter the petitioner was given a show cause notice dated 4.10.1996 alleging therein that he had not appeared before the Chief Medical Officer. A reply was submitted by the petitioner to the said notice on 14.10.1996. However, by application dated 2.11.1996 contained as Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement. This application was given by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3/4. However, the petitioner has submitted that on reconsideration he moved an application dated 22.11.1996 to the District Magistrate for withdrawing his voluntary retirement. A true copy of such application has been enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure-8. The petitioner states that by an order dated 28.11.1996, he has been retired from service by the respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 29.1.1996. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner moved an application before the Commissioner Varanasi Division /Prescribed Authority Nagar Palika Parishad Gopiganj on 17.12.1996 for setting aside the order and to be treated as in service. The Commissioner Varanasi considered the application of the petitioner and by his order dated 9.3.2000 directed that the voluntary retirement of the petitioner should be w.e.f. 28.11.1996 and ordered that payment of entire dues pension etc. should be made to the petitioner treating him to be in service upto 27.11.1996. It is further stated that order for payment of his retirement benefits was passed, however, the same was denied to the petitioner by a subsequent order of the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the petitioner had not completed 50 years age and 20 years service.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 4 wherein it has been stated that since the petitioner had not worked from 29.1.1996 therefore, he was directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer Bhadohi. The petitioner did not appear before him. The certificate produced by the petitioner were considered to be forged. It has further been averred that the petitioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement on his own free will before the respondent No. 3/4 which was accepted on 28.11.1996. It has been stated that the application dated 22.11.1996 made by the petitioner for withdrawing his voluntary retirement was not made before the respondent No. 3/4 It has been stated that the application dated 22.11.1996 made by the petitioner for withdrawing his voluntary retirement was not made before the competent authority but it was made before the District Magistrate who was not the authority concerned with respect to the services of the petitioner. It has also been stated that the District Magistrate forwarded the said application of the petitioner to the respondent No. 3/4 and was received by the office of the answering respondent on 5.12.1996. It has been stated that the order dated 28.11.1996 was served on the petitioner on very same day. No such application for withdrawing his retirement application was made by the petitioner before the competent authority i.e. President Nagar Palika Parishad Gopiganj. It has further been stated that after eight days of the acceptance of his voluntary retirement, the petitioner received his amount of group insurance. It has also been stated that the voluntary retirement of the petitioner stands confirmed by the Commissioner in appeal. In para 16 of the counter affidavit, it has been averred that the petitioner has availed the benefit of group insurance, G.P.F. and other funds and that he has alternative remedy of revision before the State and that this writ petition has been filed by a delay of one year without any explanation.