Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge an Order dated 30-06-2021 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (‘DIG’), Central Reserve Police Force (‘CRPF’) wherein the petitioner’s request to postpone the date of proceeding on voluntary retirement was rejected and the acceptance of voluntary retirement of the petitioner w.e.f. 30-06-2021 was also cancelled, a Division Bench of Navin Chawla* and Shalinder Kaur, JJ. denied the rejection of the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement and directed him to be considered voluntarily retired from 30-06-2021 and also directed all consequential benefits to be released within 12 weeks from the date the petitioner completes all formalities for the release of his pension.
Background
The petitioner, who had served in the CRPF for over three decades, suffered a kidney failure due to which he underwent a transplant surgery on 02-05-2016. He was transferred to the Group Centre (‘GC’), CRPF in Nagpur and his request for an extension of his posting in Delhi due to medical grounds was rejected. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition which was dismissed vide Order dated 11-09-2020.
The petitioner submitted an application dated 05-03-2021 for his voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30-06-2021, which was accepted by the respondents vide Order dated 10-06-2021.
The petitioner contended that since he received this Order late and could not complete all the formalities for the release of his pension, he requested for the change of his retirement date from 30-06-2021 to 31-07-2021. This request was rejected by the impugned Order dated 30-06-2021 and he was directed to report for duty at GC Nagpur. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the present petition.
The respondents contended that the petitioner requested for a change of date to get an increment which would have become due on 01-07-2021, but the petitioner did not give enough time to the respondents to process his application.
It was also mentioned that by an email dated 29-06-2021, the petitioner submitted his medical fitness certificate with a request to join his duties in the Directorate stating that he is now fit for resuming his duties. However, the petitioner was directed to report to GC Nagpur. The petitioner did not join the duty and remained willfully absent because of which, a Departmental Inquiry was conducted and a punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to him vide Order dated 11-07-2022.
The respondents handed over the speaking Order dated 30-10-2024 issued by the DIG, CRPF to the Court whereby the request of the petitioner for proceeding on voluntary retirement was rejected by observing that his request had been accepted only due to his medical conditions but since the petitioner claimed that he was medically fit to join duty, his application could only have been submitted after he joined his duty in Nagpur and gave reasons for voluntary retirement.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner wanted only a one-month extension to proceed with his voluntary retirement probably because he would have earned one increment, which would have become due and payable on 01-07-2021.
The Court opined that the voluntary retirement of the petitioner which already stood accepted by the respondents could not have been cancelled only for this reason. It was further said that at best, the petitioner’s request for postponement of the date could have been rejected and that he should have been directed to voluntarily retire on 30-06-2021.
Thus, the Court directed the petitioner to be considered as having proceeded on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30-06-2021, and also directed all consequential benefits to be released to him within 12 weeks from the date he completes all formalities for release of his pension and other retirement benefits that were due.
Lastly, while disposing of the petition, the Court quashed the departmental proceedings that had been initiated against the petitioner for his failure to report at GC Nagpur.
[Baikuntha Nath Das v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1446 of 2023, Decided on 26-11-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Navin Chawla
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Ankit Negi
For Respondents — SPC Kavindra Gill, Law Officer Ajay Pal, Pairvi Officer of CRPF Shiv Kumar Singh
The post appeared first on .