Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

"High Court Sets Aside Tribunal's Rejection of Voluntary Retirement Request - Finds Petitioner's Qualifying Service Meets Requirement"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court delivered a judgement on July 24, 2023, setting aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) which had rejected a petitioner's request for voluntary retirement. The High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, found that the petitioner did possess the required qualifying service for voluntary retirement.

The petitioner, Kamlesh, who had been engaged with the Railways since 1980, sought voluntary retirement on October 1, 2016. However, the Tribunal had rejected his application on the grounds of inadequate qualifying service of 20 years, a prerequisite for voluntary retirement.

Citing the relevant evidence, the High Court noted a crucial letter from the Office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer which stated that as of October 1, 2016, Kamlesh's total qualifying service amounted to "24 years, 5 months, and 2 days." This piece of evidence had not been considered by the Tribunal, prompting the High Court to overturn its decision.

Justice V. Kameswar Rao, in the judgement, asserted, "The Tribunal failed to properly examine the petitioner's service particulars and relevant documents, which led to an erroneous rejection of the voluntary retirement application. We hereby set aside the Tribunal's order and remand the matter back for fresh consideration within six months."

The Court also emphasized that the period of unauthorised absence during disciplinary proceedings, which had been set aside earlier, must be accounted for in determining the petitioner's qualifying service. It directed the Tribunal to ensure proper examination of the petitioner's service book and other relevant records.

The judgement highlighted the significance of adhering to the principles of the Rule of Law and the necessity for thorough consideration of all relevant evidence before arriving at a decision.

Date of Decision: July 24, 2023

 KAMLESH vs  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.        

 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Kamlesh_vs_Union_Of_India_And_Ors_on_24_July_2023_DelHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News