GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR vs ASHA GUPTA
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 02.04.2024
+ W.P.(C) 1066/2017
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan, Ms.Supriya Malik & Mr.Akshat Tyagi, Advs. with Mr.Ravi Kumar, Senior Assistant.
versus
ASHA GUPTA ….. Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HONBLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
HONBLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A. No.4249/2015. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application (OA) filed by the respondent/applicant by quashing the order dated 26.11.2014 vide which her application for withdrawal of her pre-mature retirement was rejected. Consequently, the petitioners were directed to permit the respondent to re-join service with a further direction that the period during which she remained out of service be treated as not on duty without being treated as break-in-service.
2. A perusal of the record shows that upon the impugned order being assailed, this Court had on 08.02.2017, while issuing notice in the petition, had stayed the operation of the impugned order. The record also shows that though the respondent had entered appearance and was initially being represented before this Court, none has been appearing on her behalf after 26.02.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is perhaps because of the fact that the respondent has, in the interregnum, reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.2016.
3. Taking into account that the respondent has remained unrepresented for the last many years, we have taken up the petition for disposal today itself without granting any further opportunity to the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has without appreciating the fact that once the respondent had sought voluntary retirement from service w.e.f. 31.08.2014, which request was duly accepted, her belated representation submitted on 01.09.2014, seeking permission to withdraw her request for premature retirement could not have been accepted.
5. In order to appreciate the aforesaid plea of the petitioner it would be apposite to refer to the relevant extracts of the impugned order as contained in paragraph no.5 thereof. The same reads as under:-
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant facts of the case. Admittedly, the applicant gave a letter dated 03.06.2014 addressed to CDPO requesting for VRS. The said letter was not addressed to the competent authority. When the order dated 29.08.2014 was issued, there were still two days left, namely, 30th and 31 August, 2014 for the applicant to point out that the letter dated 03.06.2014 should be ignored as it is not addressed to the Competent Authority. She could also have filed her application for withdrawal of VRS in this three days time. However, this was not done by the applicant. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that 30th and 31st August, 2014 were Saturday and Sunday and the headquarter office was closed. Therefore, though she wrote her request for withdrawal of VRS on 30.08.2014, it could reached the Competent Authority only on 01.09.2014. There is no doubt that the respondents have acted according to the provisions of rules because the applicant had filed her request for voluntary retirement in June 2014 with intended date as 31.08.2014. All of a sudden, after issuance of the order dated 29.08.2014, the applicant wakes up and files an application on 30.08.2014 seeking withdrawal of VRS, which was, however, received after the intended date of retirement i.e. 01.09.2014. Though, these facts cannot be disputed and refuted, however, the fact remains that the applicant is a woman employee and while she had indeed decided to opt for voluntary retirement in June 2014 on an after thought, she did decide to continue in service by withdrawing her request for VRS. Unfortunately, she took too much time to change her mind and committed the technical fault of filing her petition for withdrawal one day beyond the intended date of retirement. I also note the fact that 30th and 31st were Saturday and Sunday. The spirit of rules are not to cause hardship to Govt. servants. Moreover, as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant, she would have continued in service till 31.12.2016. It would thus, be too harsh a decision to deny that opportunity on mere technicality of a days delay for which also there are cogent reasons, as stated above. The other issue weighing on my mind is that women employees face lot of bias, discrimination and hardships even today in our country and they should be encouraged rather than discouraged.
6. From a perusal of the aforesaid, we find that the impugned order in itself records that though the request of the respondent for premature retirement was accepted w.e.f. 31.08.2014, she had submitted her first representation to seek withdrawal thereof only on 01.09.2014 i.e., beyond the intended date of voluntary retirement. The learned Tribunal has, however, has proceeded on the premise that a mere technicality of one days delay should not have come in the way of permitting the respondent to seek withdrawal of her request for premature retirement.
7. We also find from the impugned order that the learned Tribunal appears to have been swayed by the fact that the respondent was a lady who took too much time to change her mind and, therefore, committed the technical fault of filing a petition for withdrawal one day beyond the intended date of retirement. The Tribunal has observed that since women employees face bias, discrimination and hardship, they should be encouraged rather than discouraged. We are, unfortunately, unable to agree with the learned Tribunal. In our view, merely because the respondent was a lady and she deserved encouragement in the matters of employment; the same would not imply that rules which clearly stipulate that no request for withdrawal can be entertained after the intended date of retirement should be given a complete go by. In our view, after 30.09.2016, the ties between the respondent and the petitioner stood severed and therefore, only on the ground of sympathy or the need to encourage women employees, she could not be permitted to rejoin service. Furthermore, the respondent was, in any event, due for superannuation within four months from the date of her voluntary retirement and, consequently, has not been deprived of her retiral dues due to this premature retirement, which she chose voluntarily. As noted hereinabove, the respondent is unrepresented before this Court for the last many years, this is perhaps on account of the fact that after her voluntary retirement, she was entitled to receive all her terminal dues.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. The writ petition is, accordingly allowed.
REKHA PALLI, J
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
APRIL 2, 2024
kk
W.P.(C) 1066/2017 Page 5 of 5