Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

"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"]

Similar News