NANI GOPAL DEB Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application had been preferred challenging, inter alia, the memoranda dated 11th December, 1996 and 3rd October, 1997 issued for and on behalf of the respondent no.2.

(2.) The facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Superintendent B. R. Gr-I under the General Reserve Engineering Forces (hereinafter referred to as the GREF). While serving in the said post the petitioner met with an accident in the month of December, 1965 and as a consequence thereof he lost one of his eyes forever. The Medical Board declared him unfit for the post and recommended for decategorization and for posting at the Base Office. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed in the post of Assistant Gr-I and he served in the said post till 2nd December, 1978. In the midst thereof the petitioner applied for leave of 90 days with effect from 4th September, 1978 to 2nd December, 1978 and such prayer for leave was granted by the Competent Authority. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner applied for extension of such leave for 90 days with effect from 3rd December, 1978 till 2nd March, 1978 but such leave was not sanctioned by the Competent Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no.2 on 9th October, 1996 stating inter alia that for deterioration of his eye sight, the petitioner was unable to continue with the office work. By the said representation the petitioner further requested the respondent no.2 to disburse his Government Provident Fund and Gratuity amount and to finalise his pension. As the said respondent maintained a deceptive silence, a further reminder was issued on 25th November, 1996.

(3.) Upon consideration of the said reminder dated 25th November, 1996, the respondent no.2 vide memorandum dated 11th December, 1996 intimated that the petitioner was asked to report for duty upon expiry of the sanctioned leave period with a rider to the effect that if he fails to join, he would be declared deserter. By the said memorandum it was further intimated that as he failed to join his duty in spite of the repeated reminders, he had been removed from service under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules of 1965) with effect from 3rd June, 1983 and that for such removal the petitioner was not entitled to any pensionary benefits as per the existing rules. After the said memorandum dated 11th December, 1996, a further memorandum dated 3rd October, 1997 was issued, reiterating inter alia that the petitioner had been removed from GREF service under Rule 14 of the said rules and that accordingly he is not entitled to any pensionary benefits.