P.Palanisamy.. v. Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 14.12.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.31969 of 2007P.Palanisamy.. Petitioner Vs.1.Union of India, rep. By its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.2.Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.3.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai-65.4.Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai-65... RespondentsThis writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to theorder No.P.III-01/2007-GC-Pension dated 31.8.2007 passed by thefourth respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondentsto take the petitioner into the strength of CRPF as Constable GDwith all monetary benefits.For Petitioner : Mr.M.Md.Ibrahim AliFor Respondents : Mr.C.Gurulingam- - - - ORDERHeard both sides. The petitioner has come forward to file thepresent writ petition seeking to challenge the order dated31.8.2007 passed by the fourth respondent. By the said order, thepetitioner was informed that the withdrawal of notice to go onvoluntary retirement given by the petitioner by letter, dated17.8.2007 was considered and rejected by the competent authority.It was also informed that the voluntary retirement, dated 1.9.2007was accepted earlier by the order of the department, dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

25.7.2007 will stand. Therefore, the petitioner should accept thefact that he had been voluntarily retired on the date notifiedwithout any further correspondence on the subject. 2.The case of the petitioner was that he joined CRPF on17.7.1985 at Group Centre, Avadi, Chennai. After completion of 22years of service, because of domestic problem, he submitted anapplication for voluntary retirement. He gave an application on28.6.2007, seeking permission to retire with effect from 1.11.2007.Since notice period was fixed beyond three months, the said requestwas not accepted. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted anotherapplication on 23.7.2007 to permit him to go on voluntaryretirement from service from 1.9.2007. 3.It is claimed by the petitioner that after about 3-1/2weeks, the petitioner sent a letter, dated 17.8.2007, withdrawingthe earlier letter seeking permission to go on voluntary retirementbecause of some changed circumstances. However, the fourthrespondent, by a letter, dated 25.7.2007 had passed an orderaccepting his application for voluntary retirement with effect from1.9.2007. When the petitioner further made correspondence, thefourth respondent rejected the request for withdrawal of notice. 4.The petitioner contended that he is only 41 years old andstill have 17 years of service. When Rule 48 relating to Voluntaryretirement provides for three months' notice, the petitioner hasgiven the said notice and it is not open to the respondents toaccept the same before the expiry of the notice. The writ petitionwas admitted on 16.4.2008. His request for the grant of an interimdirection to restore him to duty was rejected on the same day.5.On notice from this court, the respondents have filed acounter affidavit, dated Nil (October, 2008). In the counteraffidavit, it is stated that the petitioner initially submitted thenotice for voluntary retirement on 28.6.2007 to accept the samewith effect from 1.11.2007. The said request was not accepted asthe petitioner was under an order of transfer to the Group Center,CRPF, Mokamaghat. As per the Standing Order, any person is to herelieved to their new place of posting within 20 days from the dateof receipt of transfer order. The petitioner was served withtransfer order during June, 2007. However, the petitioner requestedthat the notice of voluntary retirement was to be accepted witheffect from 1.11.2007. 6.It was stated that retaining the petitioner without reliefon transfer for more than five months was not possible. Therefore,the petitioner was requested to proceed on voluntary retirement on1.9.2007 instead of 1.11.2007 so as to avoid an adverse commentfrom the higher authorities. Before accepting petitioner'svoluntary retirement, he was counselled by the competent authoritythrough a personal interview to change his decision by explaininghim the disadvantages for proceeding on voluntary retirement. But,the petitioner insisted on acceptance of voluntary retirement.Hence it was accepted. The competent authority made an endorsement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ on his request, which is as follows:"I counseled. But he is adamant that heshould so, I have told holding on him for 04months would not be correct as he is undertransfer. He has insisted that he is prepared togo away within a month. Since he is not convincedby my arguments, I accept his VoluntaryRetirement with effect from 01.09.2007. Obtainfresh application today. If he is reluctant, thenrelieve him on transfer."7.Therefore, the petitioner was allowed to proceed onvoluntary retirement on 1.9.2007. Hence the petitioner's letter forvoluntary retirement dated 17.8.2007 was received by the office on21.8.2007. In terms of Rule 48-A(4) of CCS Pension Rules, therequest of the petitioner was rejected. In the order of rejection,dated 31.8.2007, the competent authority also made the followingendorsement:"No. The Official at counseling stagewas told at length by me to be in service buthe was adamant on taking V/R. I have reasonsto believe that the V/R request was put upbasically to delay his relief on transfer andhe had wanted 4 months time in accepting hisV/R request. Since such tactical shrewdnessis unbecoming a member of force and sincesuch foul strategies would set unhealthyprecedence, I am not inclined to reverse myorder on his V/R."8.It was also stated that the petitioner ever since he joinedCRPF enjoyed his home town posting for a long period at GroupCentre, Avadi. In fact, in his 22 years of service, he had servedAvadi, Chennai for more than 18 years. Therefore, he has usedVoluntary Retirement as a way to avoid transfer to Mokamaghat. 9.The counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the judgmentof this court in R.Uma Vs. Bank of India reported in 2009 (1) CTC467. In that case, the contention was that the petitioner hadrevoked her offer to go on voluntary retirement by letter, dated14.12.2000. Therefore, the bank could not justify in relieving heron 13.1.2001 and there was no offer. 10.It must be noted thatthe said case arose out of voluntary retirement scheme (VRS)introduced by the Bank, where the Supreme Court has held that sucha scheme is based upon contract. In the present case, thepetitioner is under the statutory rule under which he is eligibleto go on voluntary retirement. Therefore, in the present case, itis open to the authorities to accept the request for voluntaryretirement before its withdrawal. In this case, the withdrawal wasmade after its acceptance and that too as contended by therespondents that the idea of giving notice itself was done to avoidtransfer order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.The case cited by the petitioner i.e. R.Uma's case, thiscourt had referred to the earlier Supreme Court's decision whicharose under a voluntary retirement scheme and those schemes areheld to be purely contractual. Even in such cases if withdrawal isafter acceptance, no relief could have been given to any person.12.In the light of the above, this court is not inclined toentertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition willstand dismissed. No costs.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvvkTo1.The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.2.Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O.Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.3.Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai-65.4.Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Center, CRPF, Avadi, Chennai-65.+ 1 CC to Mr.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali,Advocate,SR.68505PRE DELIVERY ORDER INW.P.NO.31969 of 2007KK (CO)SS (21.12.12009)