UNION OF INDIA Vs. JEEVAN SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The president writ petition is directed against the order dated 30th January, 2003, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), allowing Original Application No. 532 of 1996 filed by respondent No. 1, namely, Jeevan Shukla.

(2.) THE brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that Jeevan Shukla was appointed as lower division clerk on 22nd October, 1955 in the office of Controller of Defence Account, Allahabad (in short 'C.D.A. Pension'). He was promoted as Auditor. He completed 20 years of qualifying service on 1st November, 1975. THE respondent No. 1 consequently submitted an application on 10th September, 1974 requesting the petitioners for accepting his voluntary retirement with effect from 1st November, 1975 with further request to pay his pension and gratuity since he would have completed 20 years of qualifying service on 20th October, 1975. His application for voluntary retirement was accepted by order dated 15th November, 1979 treating it to be a resignation from service holding that he would not be entitled for any pensionery benefits. THE respondent No. 1 requested the petitioners to treat his application as voluntary retirement and not resignation and grant him pension. Ultimately by order dated 12/19th November, 1993 his request was accepted directing him to furnish his bank account, passport size photographs etc. for payment of pension/gratuity. THE respondent No. 1 submitted the requisite papers, but no amount was paid to him. THEreafter order dated 10th January, 1996 was passed stating that there is no provision under which his application can be considered for voluntary retirement, hence the request of respondent No. 1 for voluntary retirement cannot be accepted.

(3.) ON the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that he has sought voluntary retirement and not resignation, therefore it was not open to the petitioners to alter his request and terminate him under the garb of accepting resignation though he has sought voluntary retirement. He further contended that petitioners accepted his application with effect from 1975 but in 1979, i.e., after insertion of Rule 48A and therefore, have treated his application of voluntary retirement pending in 1979. In these circumstances, it was liable to be considered and disposed of in accordance with Rule 48A of Pension Rule. He also contended that in any case his request for payment of pension was accepted by the petitioners vide order dated 12/19th November, 1993 and thereafter it was not open to the petitioners to pass a contrary order on 10th January, 1996 without giving any opportunity or show-cause notice to him and that too without cancelling earlier order dated 12/19th November, 1993. He also pointed out that pursuant to the order dated 12/19th November, 1993, an office order was issued by the petitioners on 28th March, 1994 informing him that he has been treated to have voluntarily retired with effect from 1st November, 1975, but under the arbitrary and illegal order dated 10th January, 1996 the said office order was cancelled and that too without giving any opportunity to him. It also revive order dated 15th November, 1979 whereby respondent No. 1 was treated to have resigned from service with effect from 1st November, 1975. The respondent No. 1 further contended that it was not open to the petitioners to accept the request of an employee by altering terms of request and changing the very nature thereof, because either the request of the employee could have been accepted in the same terms or it ought to have been rejected. It was not open to the employer to alter the terms and pass an order purporting to as if accepting the request of the employee but in a wholly distorted and different manner. He therefore, supported the order of the Tribunal and contended that in the entirety of the facts and circumstances since the order impugned in the present writ petition passed by the Tribunal has done substantial justice to him, therefore, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court may not exercise its equitable jurisdiction by interfering with the same.