JAGDISH SINGH SHEKHAWAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the petitioner by way of this writ petition pointed out that the petitioner who was working on the post of Assistant Commandant in BSF has sought voluntary retirement and served notice dated 17.8.1991 accordingly. He had already completed more than 25 years of service and was eligible to move such an application in terms of Rule 48A of the Rules of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The said application was however not dealt with and no decision was taken by the respondents on the said application within the stipulated period as provided and therefore as per the deeming clause under Rule 48A (2) Proviso, he was required to be treated as retired from service and was also entitled to all the pensionery benefits. It is stated that having moved such an application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner also at the same time sought casual leave and proceeded on leave for 6 days but on account of having become unwell he informed the authority that he would not be able to join as he has under gone surgery. He therefore, applied for 30 days extension of leave and after he rejoined back. He again submitted fresh application leave as respondents informed the period of 90 days was over and the earlier application would not be applicable. The said application was however not dealt within the stipulated period. He again requested on 20.1.1992 for early disposal of his application for voluntary retirement. The respondents sought fresh application from the petitioner which he again submitted on 9.3.1992 and that too remained undecided. The petitioner again submitted another application on 7.4.1992 seeking release of pensionery benefits also. The petitioner was called for completion of pensionery documents on 9.5.1992 and he submitted complete pension papers but on 8.7.1992 he was intimated that the application dated 7.4.1992 has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner filed a writ petition no. 4837/1992 before this court which came to be dismissed by this court on 24.8.1992 in limine. He filed D.B. special appeal 641/1992 which was allowed on 21.3.2002 and the matter was remitted back to the Single Judge. While the said writ petition was pending, the respondents issued orders for arrest of the petitioner and therefore, he moved second stay application before the court seeking interim relief and the court passed an order restraining the respondents from arresting the petitioner. Thereafter, on 27.6.2005, the petitioner was dismissed from service and he moved an application for amendment in the writ petition challenging the order dated 27.6.2005 but the writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn within permission to file a fresh writ petition incorporating the amendments. Accordingly the present petition has been filed. The writ petition was admitted and is pending disposal.

(3.) It is submitted by the petitioner that the first application, which he had moved for voluntary retirement in itself resulted in his retirement as there was no decision taken on the said application and all the further proceedings which have under gone stand vitiated and could not have been continued against him. He was not required to move one application after another as the provision of law clearly provided that if the application for voluntary retirement is not rejected i.e. no decision is taken on the application within the notice period, from the date of the application for Voluntary retirement having been submitted, the concerned officer/employee shall be treated to have retired from service from the effective date of notice period. Thus, it is a deeming clause and the petitioner can very well presume that he stood retired after expiry of 3 months notice period provided under the proviso of Rule 48A (2).