Delhi High Court Directs Fresh Consideration of Railway Employee's Voluntary Retirement Application by CAT
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court intervened in a matter where the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Central
Delhi High Court Directs Fresh Consideration of Railway Employee's Voluntary Retirement Application by CAT
In a recent case, the Delhi High Court intervened in a matter where the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement.
Upon reviewing the case, the Delhi High Court took action and set aside the impugned order issued by the CAT. The Court directed the matter to be remanded back to the Tribunal for further consideration.
As part of its ruling, the Delhi High Court instructed the Tribunal to conduct a fresh hearing in the case. Additionally, it was directed to call for additional documents from the Union of India (respondents) to aid in the decision-making process.
Moreover, the Court placed a time-bound constraint on the proceedings, ordering the Tribunal to decide on the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement within a period of six months.
The Division Bench consisting of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta noted certain shortcomings in the respondent's counter affidavit. The affidavit lacked essential details and failed to refer to a crucial document indicating the petitioner's service of over 20 years.
The Court pointed out that the Tribunal had not thoroughly examined the petitioner's period of service. It expressed dissatisfaction with the respondent's counter affidavit, stating that it did not present the facts accurately. Specifically, the affidavit failed to mention the letter from the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Dholpur, which stated that the petitioner had completed 24 years, 5 months, and 2 days of service as of October 1, 2016.
The Court highlighted that the factual aspects of the case were not adequately addressed by the Tribunal. It emphasised the importance of considering the period of service put in by the petitioner to determine his qualifying service.
In the present case, the petitioner claimed that he was initially appointed in the then Central Railway (now North Central Railway) as a Jeep Driver, Group C Post on October 23, 1980. Later, he was promoted to Vehicle Driver Grade II on December 22, 2003. However, in 2004, he was subsequently posted as a Gangman at Agra Cantt after being reverted from Group C to Group D.
Following his reversion, the petitioner filed multiple cases before the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the decision. The Tribunal directed the respondents not to implement the order of reversion. Despite making several requests, the petitioner asserted that he was not reinstated on duty as per the Tribunal's directive.
In the year 2010, the petitioner faced removal from service due to unauthorized absence. However, in 2016, the Tribunal intervened, setting aside his removal and reinstating him back into service. Nonetheless, the Tribunal did not grant back wages but ruled that the period of absence would be counted for other service benefits.
After his reinstatement, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement in 2016. However, the respondents rejected his application, contending that he did not possess the necessary 20 years of qualifying service. The respondents argued that the petitioner had never rejoined the services after the reinstatement order, and thus, had not fulfilled the required 20 years of service needed to submit an application for voluntary retirement.
On the contrary, the petitioner insisted that he had served for more than 20 years, as substantiated by documents provided by the respondents themselves.
The Bench took note of the fact that the proceedings and penalty imposed on the petitioner due to the chargesheet issued for unauthorised absence of 154 days had been set aside. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated, and it was explicitly directed that the period of absence would be considered for other service benefits.
In essence, the unauthorised period of absence lasting 154 days would be taken into account to calculate service and retirement benefits.