ups_00052 — Pension Rule 48 is self-contained and self-evident to show that once a Government servant has put in 30 years of qualifying service and makes a request for voluntary retirement by serving three months' notice, his retirement would not depend upon the acceptance by the Government unless he was under suspension

UPS

Pension Rule 48 is self-contained and self-evident to show that once a Government servant has put in 30 years of qualifying service and makes a request for voluntary retirement by serving three months' notice, his retirement would not depend upon the acceptance by the Government unless he was under suspension — This chunk pertains to the discussion on the acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) applications under Rule 48 of CCS Pension Rules, in a case involving Smt. Megha Sudhakar Pant. The context... — Facts:Three times, the request of the Applicant for voluntary retirement after rendering 30 years of service was declined by the Respondents on the ground that she was involved in an alleged RD Fund fraud case. According to the Applicant, though it was the fault of the Machine, she has been saddled with her share of &#X20B9; 72,296 in the RD Fraud, which too, the Applicant credited. Despite the same, Respondents refused to grant permission for voluntary retirement and stated that the proceedings under the RD Fraud should be completed before considering her case for voluntary retirement. In fact, a Letter, dated 25-5-2009 by Delhi Investigation team stated that the ECS software had lacunae and same needs to be discounted from all the post offices immediately. The Applicant submitted leave application because of health issues supported with medical certificate which again was rejected. The Applicant placed the indemnity bond promising to pay the ECS Excess Payment Share in 6 months post retirement and giving powers to the Respondents to withdraw from the pensionary dues. The Applicant again requested for voluntary Retirement on 18-3-2010 and enclosed the medical certificate for medical leave for 2 months from 18-3-2010. The Respondents objected to the VRS application based on medical leave. The Applicant submitted an appeal against the rejection of VRS by citing legal provisions of reference with Corrigendum to Notice under Rule 48-A, dated 13-5-2010, that the notice to be considered under Rule 48(1)(A) (more than 30 years of qualifying service with no suspension, at the time of notice). The Applicant submitted letter to the Respondents stating that as the appeal for VRS application is already pending for approval of the Director of Postal Services i.e. Respondent No.3 herein, the medical certificates be ignored for the period when she would be deemed retired. The Respondents asked the Applicant vide Order, dated 22-9-2010 to submit a fresh VRS Notice under Rule 48(1) as Corrigendum to earlier Notice, dated 12-5-2010 cannot be accepted and informed her that her appeal for VRS application is pending for DPS review. The Applicant has placed reliance on the following case-laws:- (1) 2005(1) ATJ 447 Ahmedabad (2) Raj Pal Gaindh v. Union of India, reported in [ 1987(3) ATC 533 (Delhi) ]; (3) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, reported in [ 1995 SCC (L&S) 256 ] and (4) O.P. Sharma v. Union of India and others., reported [ 1987 (4) AISLJ 874 ] of CAT, Chandigarh Bench. The Respondents have filed their reply and contested the O.A. As the official was involved in RD Fraud Case at Thane HO and the investigation was under process, her request for VRS could not be considered and she was intimated accordingly vide office Letter, dated 9-1-2008. The disciplinary action under Rule 16 was initiated against the official vide Memo, dated 15-4-2008, I/c/w RD Fraud Case at Thane HO. The same was finalized vide Order, dated 30-12-2008 and an amount of &#X20B9; 72,296 was ordered to be recovered from the pay and allowances of the Applicant in 11 instalments of &#X20B9; 6,000 and 12th instalment of &#X20B9; 6,296 with effect from 1-1-2009. However, the Applicant vide her Application, dated 9-1-2009 had requested to allow her to credit the entire amount of &#X20B9; 72,296 in lumpsum which was permitted.

UPS

Pension Rule 48 is self-contained and self-evident to show that once a Government servant has put in 30 years of qualifying service and makes a request for voluntary retirement by serving three months' notice, his retirement would not depend upon the acceptance by the Government unless he was under suspension — This chunk pertains to the discussion on the acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) applications under Rule 48 of CCS Pension Rules, in a case involving Smt. Megha Sudhakar Pant. The context... — Facts:Three times, the request of the Applicant for voluntary retirement after rendering 30 years of service was declined by the Respondents on the ground that she was involved in an alleged RD Fund fraud case. According to the Applicant, though it was the fault of the Machine, she has been saddled with her share of &#X20B9; 72,296 in the RD Fraud, which too, the Applicant credited. Despite the same, Respondents refused to grant permission for voluntary retirement and stated that the proceedings under the RD Fraud should be completed before considering her case for voluntary retirement. In fact, a Letter, dated 25-5-2009 by Delhi Investigation team stated that the ECS software had lacunae and same needs to be discounted from all the post offices immediately. The Applicant submitted leave application because of health issues supported with medical certificate which again was rejected. The Applicant placed the indemnity bond promising to pay the ECS Excess Payment Share in 6 months post retirement and giving powers to the Respondents to withdraw from the pensionary dues. The Applicant again requested for voluntary Retirement on 18-3-2010 and enclosed the medical certificate for medical leave for 2 months from 18-3-2010. The Respondents objected to the VRS application based on medical leave. The Applicant submitted an appeal against the rejection of VRS by citing legal provisions of reference with Corrigendum to Notice under Rule 48-A, dated 13-5-2010, that the notice to be considered under Rule 48(1)(A) (more than 30 years of qualifying service with no suspension, at the time of notice). The Applicant submitted letter to the Respondents stating that as the appeal for VRS application is already pending for approval of the Director of Postal Services i.e. Respondent No.3 herein, the medical certificates be ignored for the period when she would be deemed retired. The Respondents asked the Applicant vide Order, dated 22-9-2010 to submit a fresh VRS Notice under Rule 48(1) as Corrigendum to earlier Notice, dated 12-5-2010 cannot be accepted and informed her that her appeal for VRS application is pending for DPS review. The Applicant has placed reliance on the following case-laws:- (1) 2005(1) ATJ 447 Ahmedabad (2) Raj Pal Gaindh v. Union of India, reported in [ 1987(3) ATC 533 (Delhi) ]; (3) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, reported in [ 1995 SCC (L&S) 256 ] and (4) O.P. Sharma v. Union of India and others., reported [ 1987 (4) AISLJ 874 ] of CAT, Chandigarh Bench. The Respondents have filed their reply and contested the O.A. As the official was involved in RD Fraud Case at Thane HO and the investigation was under process, her request for VRS could not be considered and she was intimated accordingly vide office Letter, dated 9-1-2008. The disciplinary action under Rule 16 was initiated against the official vide Memo, dated 15-4-2008, I/c/w RD Fraud Case at Thane HO. The same was finalized vide Order, dated 30-12-2008 and an amount of &#X20B9; 72,296 was ordered to be recovered from the pay and allowances of the Applicant in 11 instalments of &#X20B9; 6,000 and 12th instalment of &#X20B9; 6,296 with effect from 1-1-2009. However, the Applicant vide her Application, dated 9-1-2009 had requested to allow her to credit the entire amount of &#X20B9; 72,296 in lumpsum which was permitted.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text