Gorakh Singh vs. Hrtc
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
1 Jan 2012
Order Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
C.W.P. No. 7279 of 2012-H Decided on: 13th December, 2012
Gorakh Singh, son of Sh. Rikhanu Ram, resident of VPO Sidhpur, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P.
-Versus-
……….Petitioner.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation Ltd. Main Bus Stand, Shimla-3 through its Managing Director.
…… Respondent.
Civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
| Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral): | ||
|---|---|---|
| For the respondent | : | Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate.<br> |
| For the petitioner | : | Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior<br>Advocate, with Mr. Manish<br>Sharma, Advocate. |
The petitioner joined as Chief Inspector in the respondent-Corporation on 01.02.1990. He was promoted as Traffic Manager in the month of March, 1996. He was further promoted as Regional Manager in June, 2005. He submitted an application on 01.06.2012, seeking voluntary retirement under Rule 48 A & B of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. He was voluntarily retired w.e.f. 14.06.2012 under Rule 48-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Petitioner made a representation on 29.06.2012, requesting the respondents to re-consider the decision regarding his voluntary retirement. The petitioner has also submitted a detailed representation on 05.07.2012. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 6099 of 2012. A direction was issued by this Court to the Corporation to decide the representation in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 25.08.2012.
-
The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that he has made a request for voluntary retirement on 01.06.2012, without making any request for curtailing the period of notice of three months as required under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, the respondent has suo moto curtailed the period of three months notice vide order, dated 14.06.2012.
-
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
-
According to the plain language of Rule 48-A(1), a Government servant by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, may retire from service, if he has completed twenty years' qualifying service. According to Rule 48-A (3-A) (a), a Government servant may make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months by assigning reasons. Thereafter, as per Rule 48-A (3-A) (b), on receipt of a request, the appointing authority may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merit and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, in these circumstances, the appointing authority can relax the requirement of notice of three months, with a rider that the Government servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months. In the instant case, the
2
petitioner has never requested for curtailment of period of notice of three months. The decision has been taken by the Corporation unilaterally to curtail the period of notice of three months by retiring the petitioner on 14.06.2012. Thus, the voluntary retirement of the petitioner is against the provisions of law. The appointing authority has failed to take into consideration the provisions of Rule 48-A (3-A) (b) while accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner and also at the time of rejecting his representation on 25.08.2012.
- Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure P-2, dated 14.06.2012 and Annexure P-8, dated 25.08.2012, are quashed and set aside. The respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of one week from today as Regional Manager. The period from the date of his voluntary retirement till reinstatement will be regularized firstly by adjusting his compensatory/half pay leave by commuting the same and the remaining period will be regularized by adjusting his earned leave. The pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice.
(Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge.
December 13, 2012. (bhupender)
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order