The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home v. Affairs, Central Secretariat, New Delhi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 6960 of 2013 ---------- Ilahi Mohammad Kureshi … … … Petitioner 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Versus Affairs, Central Secretariat, New Delhi – 110001. 2. The Director General of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3. The Inspector General, Jharkhand Sector Central Reserve Police Force, Ranchi Range, Dhurwa, Ranchi 4. The Commandant, 118 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force,
Legal Reasoning
C/o 56 APO, Shrinagar, Gund (Jammu & Kashmir) … … … Respondents. ---------- CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK For the Petitioner For the Respondents ----------- : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, CGC ---------- 09/17.05.2024 Heard the parties. PRAYERS OF THE PETITIONER 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the office order no. P-III-1/12-118-EC-IV, dated 21.09.2012 as also the appellate order dated 08.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Ranchi. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits including back wages from the date of voluntary retirement till the date of reinstatement. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. As per the factual matrix, petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force on 14.11.1991. Before entering into the service, petitioner had successfully undergone several physical and medical tests and thereafter, was appointed as a constable in CRPF. Petitioner satisfactorily discharged his duty from the date of appointment in the year 1991. During the course of service, he was declared unfit for service by the Departmental Rehabilitation Board, 2011 of Bihar Sector ‘CRPF’ held on 18.08.2011 at Bihar Sector, Patna, which was protested vide representation dated 19.11.2011. Thereafter, the Commandant, 118 Battalion CRPF, Gund, Jammu & Kashmir [a Unit of Group Centre, CRPF, Sembo, Ranchi, Jharkhand], recommended for voluntary retirement of the petitioner in three copies, as appears from letter dated 02.11.2011. Thereafter, petitioner was not at all ready and willing to submit the application for voluntary retirement but petitioner was asked to submit an application for voluntary retirement and as such, because of coercion, petitioner submitted application for voluntary retirement on 10.09.2012. Thereafter, the order, as contained in office order no. P-III-1/12-118-EC-IV, dated 21.09.2012 was passed whereby petitioner has been compulsorily retired. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation before the Home Minister, Government of India on 19.01.2013 which was duly processed at various level and the Deputy Director General of Police (Welfare), vide letter dated 12.02.2013, referred the same to the Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand Sector, CRPF, Ranchi for appropriate steps. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), CRPF, Bihar Sector, Patna vide his letter dated 06.03.2013, referred the matter to the Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand CRPF, Ranchi for taking appropriate steps. Thereafter, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Jharkhand Sector, CRPF, Ranchi requested the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ranchi Range, Ranchi to take appropriate step on the representation of the petitioner, which was forwarded to him by the Ministry of Home Affairs by letter dated 14.03.2013. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 08.05.2013. It is case of the petitioner that pension has not been started as yet. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER 4. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that because of coercion, petitioner had to submit application for voluntary retirement. However, it was clearly mentioned in the said application that the same was submitted in accordance with the decision of the Rehabilitation Board. Petitioner was not at all ready and willing to submit the same but the authorities put undue influence to submit the application. Learned counsel further urges that the terminology ‘voluntary RC 2 retirement’ connotes that the employee must be ready and willing to retire from the service. However, in the instant case, petitioner has been voluntarily retired from the service against his will. Petitioner was pressurized by the respondents in the name of decision of the Rehabilitation Board that he should tender the application for voluntary retirement and as such, petitioner was coerced to make such application, which is illegal, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power and the same is fit to be interfered with. Learned counsel further urges that pension of the petitioner has not been started yet. The impugned order whereby petitioner has been voluntarily retired as also the appellate order are fit to be quashed and set aside and petitioner is entitled for the consequential benefits. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 5. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned ASGI urges that the petitioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement vide application dated 29.06.2011 without completing twenty years’ of service and as such his application was returned with direction to submit the same after completing 20 years’ of qualifying service vide 118 Battalion, CRPF, letter no. P-III.1/2011 – 118 – EC-IV, dated 23.07.2011. Again petitioner submitted application dated 14.11.2011 for verifying his qualifying service for proceeding on voluntary retirement and the same was forwarded to GC, CRPF, Ranchi vide Commandant 118 Battalion, CRPF Letter No. P III-1/2011-118-EC- IV, dated 21.11.2011. The GC, Ranchi, after got verified his qualifying service, issued an office order no. C-II-13/2012-SRC-II-118-VQS, dated 03.04.2012 mentioning qualifying service as on 31.03.2012 as 20 years and 28 days. In the meantime, a Board proceeding dated 18.08.2011 of Departmental Rehabilitation Board 2010 presided over by the IGP, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Patna letter no. R-II-4/12-BS-ADM-2, dated 09.09.2011, received in 118 Battalion, CRPF. As per the details mentioned at Sl. No. 6 of Appendix – A, enclosed with the Board proceedings, the petitioner was produced before the Departmental Rehabilitation Board-2010 of Bihar Sector by the Commandant-81 Bn, CRPF, mentioning therein as under: RC 3 “Individual reported in unit M.I. Room with complains of severe back pain. He was further referred to CH Bilashpur for better treatment in 2009. MRI was done at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur and diagnosed that slip disc at C3-4, C-5, C6-7 and degenerative change in Cervical Spine seen. Individual categorized as SHAPE-IV(T) as on 20.11.2009” The petitioner was thereafter examined by the five members of the Departmental Rehabilitation Board-2010, the decision was given, which reads as under: “He is unfit for active duty in CRPF. However, he is willing to proceed on voluntary retirement. As stated by the individual, he was already applied for Voluntary Retirement. Concerned HO should ensure acceptance of his voluntary retirement request within three months.” Accordingly, a copy of the Departmental Rehabilitation Board-2010 proceedings was served to the petitioner vide Commandant 118 Battalion, CRPF Office letter no. P-III-1/2012-118-EC–IV, dated 05.09.2012. Subsequently, petitioner submitted an application dated 10.09.2012 enclosing an undertaking and requested before the competent authority that he wanted to proceed on Voluntary Retirement with effect from 01.11.2012 (FN) due to domestic problems. Accordingly, the competent authority accepted his request for voluntary retirement. Petitioner could have filed an application before the competent authority upto 31.10.2012 for withdrawal of such application but he did not do so. At this belated stage, plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted. He was never coerced or compelled to take voluntary retirement. There is no merits in the instant writ petition and the same is fit to be dismissed. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 7. Petitioner has tried to make out a case of coercion and has pleaded for quashment of the order of voluntary retirement. Nothing has been brought on record to show that petitioner was subjected to coercion rather from the documents brought on record by the respondents as well as report of the Committee (Annexure-1) regarding his condition ‘unfit for duty’ shows that after medical examination petitioner was put before the Departmental Rehabilitation Board – 2011 of Bihar Sector, CRPF, held on RC 4 18.08.2011 at Bihar Sector, Patna and name of the petitioner appears at serial no. 6. The decision of the Board reads as under: “He is unfit for active duty in CRPF. However, he is willing to proceed on voluntary retirement. As stated by the individual he has already applied for V/R. Concerned H.O.O. should ensure acceptance of his voluntary retirement request within three months.” 8. It appears from different documents that application was made by the petitioner on 29.06.2011 itself for voluntary retirement and taking a lenient and sympathetic view that since petitioner has not completed twenty years of qualifying service as on date of application for grant of pensionary benefits, the same was returned. Thereafter, on completion of twenty years, petitioner himself made a request on 03.04.2012 for acceptance of voluntary retirement. In view of medical report dated 20.11.2009 and the decision of the Rehabilitation Board, which clearly opined that petitioner was unfit for duty, the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted and given effect to on 01.11.2012 (FN). Accordingly, the competent authority accepted his request for voluntary retirement. If at all petitioner was aggrieved, he could have made an application for withdrawal up to 31.10.2012, the same was not done. In absence of any such application within the prescribed period and in view of aforesaid observation, rightly the order of voluntary retirement was passed and was given effect to. 9. No interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, if petitioner has not received any retiral benefits, as per his entitlement after qualifying service of twenty years, he may file a fresh representation, the same is directed to be considered in accordance with law and the retiral benefits may be extended to him if not extended till date, within a period of twelve weeks. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC 5