MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"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