ups_00439 — Applicant, an Accounts Officer under Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Regional Office, R-4 herein, submitted his voluntary retirement letter when he had completed 33 years of service, due to his health condition, which was kept for processing for a long time which led to file this OA. Tribunal allowed the application as it found no reason not to accept the same and quashed various letters of correspondence in this case and ordered deemed voluntary retirement with effect from 29-9-2017 or

UPS

Applicant, an Accounts Officer under Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Regional Office, R-4 herein, submitted his voluntary retirement letter when he had completed 33 years of service, due to his health condition, which was kept for processing for a long time which led to file this OA. Tribunal allowed the application as it found no reason not to accept the same and quashed various letters of correspondence in this case and ordered deemed voluntary retirement with effect from 29-9-2017 or on the date when three months' notice dated 27-6-2017 given by the Applicant for voluntary retirement expires with all consequential benefits. Payment of cost amounting to ₹ 5,000 is also ordered — The provided chunk is from an Original Application (OA No. 207 of 2018) filed by an Accounts Officer who had completed 33 years of service and submitted a voluntary retirement notice, which was not a... — Facts: Applicant, herein was appointed on 11-6-1984 as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and on promotion to various categories, finally reached the position of Accounts Officer with effect from 3-1-2003 after 33 years and nineteen days of service under the Respondents. He tendered a voluntary retirement notice, dated 27-6-2017 addressed to Central P.F. Commissioner, R-2 herein to accept the notice forthwith or immediately after 3 months of receipt of the notice. That notice was received by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, R-4 herein who in turn sent it to Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, R-3 herein. The grievance of the Applicant is that, even after elapse of 3 months from the date of receipt of voluntary retirement notice under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, he was not given any letter accepting it. Being put in hardship and agony, he filed this OA for the above reason. By letter, dated 22-12-2017, he received the information that his voluntary retirement was not accepted by head office and advised him to submit fresh notice in this regard. In spite of repeatedly submitting his voluntary retirement request, no useful purpose of accepting his notice is received.Aggrieved by the above 3 letters received from his office, he has approached the Tribunal by this OA seeking relief. The details given by the Applicant regarding his service had been accepted. Yet it is said that the veracity of his caste as Scheduled Caste is under scrutiny and asked the Applicant to submit requisite caste Certificate to verify this caste consideration. In his rejoinder, he submitted the required details on 20-8-1997. He also certified that no disciplinary proceeding against him is pending. Counsel for the Applicant produced Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (A-5 to OA) which is reproduced. That rule deals with “Retirement on completion of 30 years' qualifying service”. Under that rule, he is entitled to retire from service having completed more than 33 years of service with full retirement benefits. Applicant relied on the judgment of Tek Chand v. Dile Ram, [ 2001 (3) SCC 290, Paras. 70 and 71 ] to substantiate his request. Respondents state that the Rule 48 relied on by Applicant is out of context and Rule 48 (A) of CCS (Pension Rules) deals with voluntary retirement. From the above, it is clear that the Applicant is not under suspension and Respondents showed no other provision regarding empowering to withhold the permission to retire the Applicant other than provision of Rule 48
(i)
(a) which provides suspension, the Applicant is entitled for a declaration that he had voluntarily retired from service with effect from 29-9-2017 or after completion of 3 months of service from the date of receipt of his request for voluntary retirement. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of Division Bench of the Principal Bench order in O.A. No. 3775 of 2012, R.D. Bohet v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, [ 2013 SCC online CAT 1683 ]. Paras. 11 and 12 of the above judgment are reproduced to substantiate the non-application of mind by Respondents in this connection. Hence impugned letters, dated, 22-12-2017, 31-1-2018 and 9-2-2018 are the result of non-application of mind by Respondents and are not in consonance of Rule, 48 referred to above.

UPS

Applicant, an Accounts Officer under Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Regional Office, R-4 herein, submitted his voluntary retirement letter when he had completed 33 years of service, due to his health condition, which was kept for processing for a long time which led to file this OA. Tribunal allowed the application as it found no reason not to accept the same and quashed various letters of correspondence in this case and ordered deemed voluntary retirement with effect from 29-9-2017 or on the date when three months' notice dated 27-6-2017 given by the Applicant for voluntary retirement expires with all consequential benefits. Payment of cost amounting to ₹ 5,000 is also ordered — The provided chunk is from an Original Application (OA No. 207 of 2018) filed by an Accounts Officer who had completed 33 years of service and submitted a voluntary retirement notice, which was not a... — Facts: Applicant, herein was appointed on 11-6-1984 as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and on promotion to various categories, finally reached the position of Accounts Officer with effect from 3-1-2003 after 33 years and nineteen days of service under the Respondents. He tendered a voluntary retirement notice, dated 27-6-2017 addressed to Central P.F. Commissioner, R-2 herein to accept the notice forthwith or immediately after 3 months of receipt of the notice. That notice was received by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, R-4 herein who in turn sent it to Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, R-3 herein. The grievance of the Applicant is that, even after elapse of 3 months from the date of receipt of voluntary retirement notice under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, he was not given any letter accepting it. Being put in hardship and agony, he filed this OA for the above reason. By letter, dated 22-12-2017, he received the information that his voluntary retirement was not accepted by head office and advised him to submit fresh notice in this regard. In spite of repeatedly submitting his voluntary retirement request, no useful purpose of accepting his notice is received.Aggrieved by the above 3 letters received from his office, he has approached the Tribunal by this OA seeking relief. The details given by the Applicant regarding his service had been accepted. Yet it is said that the veracity of his caste as Scheduled Caste is under scrutiny and asked the Applicant to submit requisite caste Certificate to verify this caste consideration. In his rejoinder, he submitted the required details on 20-8-1997. He also certified that no disciplinary proceeding against him is pending. Counsel for the Applicant produced Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (A-5 to OA) which is reproduced. That rule deals with “Retirement on completion of 30 years' qualifying service”. Under that rule, he is entitled to retire from service having completed more than 33 years of service with full retirement benefits. Applicant relied on the judgment of Tek Chand v. Dile Ram, [ 2001 (3) SCC 290, Paras. 70 and 71 ] to substantiate his request. Respondents state that the Rule 48 relied on by Applicant is out of context and Rule 48 (A) of CCS (Pension Rules) deals with voluntary retirement. From the above, it is clear that the Applicant is not under suspension and Respondents showed no other provision regarding empowering to withhold the permission to retire the Applicant other than provision of Rule 48
(i)
(a) which provides suspension, the Applicant is entitled for a declaration that he had voluntarily retired from service with effect from 29-9-2017 or after completion of 3 months of service from the date of receipt of his request for voluntary retirement. The Tribunal relied on the judgment of Division Bench of the Principal Bench order in O.A. No. 3775 of 2012, R.D. Bohet v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, [ 2013 SCC online CAT 1683 ]. Paras. 11 and 12 of the above judgment are reproduced to substantiate the non-application of mind by Respondents in this connection. Hence impugned letters, dated, 22-12-2017, 31-1-2018 and 9-2-2018 are the result of non-application of mind by Respondents and are not in consonance of Rule, 48 referred to above.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text