Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dheer Singh vs Gnctd on 19 November, 2025
1
Item No. 38/ C-2 O.A. No. 4796/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 4796/2024
This the 19th day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Dheer Singh
S/o Lt. Sh. Rati Ram
R/o: 315, Village Karkardooma
Delhi 110092 ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ankit Mehta with Mr. Varun Singh)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Secretary
Deptt. Of Health & Family Welfare
Secretariat IP Estate New Sachivalya
New Delhi-110002
2. C.M.O.,
Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital,
Dilshad Garden, Shahdara,
Delhi-110095
3. M.D./HOD
Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital,
Dilshad Garden, Shahdara,
Delhi-110095
4. Administrative Officer
Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital,
Dilshad Garden, Shahdara,
Delhi-110095 ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Yadav with Ms Monika Bhargava and
Mr. Pushp Raj Yadav, Legal Assistant with Mr. Ranveer Singh
Rawat, Sr. Assistant )
2
Item No. 38/ C-2 O.A. No. 4796/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J) In the present O.A., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged an order dated 03.05.2024 vide which the respondents have accepted his request for voluntary retirement from Government service w.e.f. 08.05.2024 (after-noon) under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
2. In the present O.A., the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"a) To set-Aside Of Office Order Bearing No. F.15(1)/87/E-
III/GTBH/650-56 and to reinstate the applicant on his post along with all the benefits, alongwith back wages, outstanding dues and consequential benefits in the interest of justice or any other relief.
b) Direct the respondents to give the applicant all consequential benefits; and/or
c) In alternate if the applicant is not reinstated then to direct the respondent(s) to give wages/backpay wages to the applicant and to grant him gratuity as per the rules; and/or
d) Award compensation to the extent of financial loss the applicant have suffered because of the office order passed by the respondents, and/or
e) Award the deficit salary as it was eligible for the post of Head Cook since the date of passing of the Office Order dated 21.09.2017."
3. In opposition to the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed counter reply and they have prayed for dismissal of the OA. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter has been taken up for consideration and disposal. 3
Item No. 38/ C-2 O.A. No. 4796/2024
4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance, we have also perused the pleadings available on record/judgments cited by them.
5. Undisputed facts are that the applicant was appointed on the post of Masalchi (cook) on 06.05.1987. On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, he was promoted to the post of Head Cook on 21.09.2017. The applicant has submitted his request dated 09.02.2024 seeking voluntary retirement. The said request of the applicant was processed by the respondents and the respondents have accepted his request vide impugned order dated 03.05.2024 for his retirement w.e.f. 08.05.2024 (After-noon).
6. It is also undisputed that before the said retirement of the applicant could become effective, the applicant has submitted a representation dated 06.05.2024 seeking cancellation/withdrawal of his request dated 09.02.2024 under reference and to allow him to perform his duties.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that before the employer-employee relationship between the parties herein in the O.A. can cease, the applicant has admittedly preferred the representation dated 06.05.2024 seeking cancellation/withdrawal of his request dated 09.02.2024 and for permission to allow him to perform his duties, the impugned order of his voluntary 4 Item No. 38/ C-2 O.A. No. 4796/2024 retirement w.e.f. 08.05.2024 (After-noon) is illegal and not sustainable in law.
8. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases, namely, (i) Judgment dated 01.09.1987 in the matter of Balram Gupta Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in 1987 AIR 2354; (ii) Judgment dated 22.09.1997 in the matter of J. N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in AIR 1999 SC 1571; (iii) Judgment dated 13.03.2002 in the matter of Shambhu Murari Sinha Vs. Project & Development India Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2002 (3) SCC 437 and (iv) Order/judgment dated 17.09.2025 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) N0. 13289/2023 in the matter of Birander Singh Ex DC Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2025 DHC 8315-DB.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant. He, by referringto the assertions made in the counter reply, submits that as per the records maintained by the respondents, the applicant was a habitual absentee, he was on EOL (152 days) on account of private affair and 761 days dies-non during his entire service besides he also availed E.L. and Medical Leave. He submits that admittedly the applicant has preferred 5 Item No. 38/ C-2 O.A. No. 4796/2024 representation seeking voluntary retirement on 09.02.2024 and the same was processed by the respondents in accordance with the rules and instructions on the subject and the Competent Authority has accepted the same vide the impugned order. He, by inviting our attention to the memorandum dated 13.07.2024 (Annexure- R/1), submits that in view of the provisions of Rule 43 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR 56, retirement can be withdrawn with permission of the Appointing Authority not less than 15 days before the intended date of retirement. He submits that admittedly the intended date of retirement has been 08.05.2024 and the applicant has preferred representation only two days prior to that i.e. 06.05.2024 seeking cancellation/withdrawal of his request dated 09.02.2024.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Birander Singh Ex DC (supra) is not of any help to the applicant inasmuch as in that case the issue before the Hon'ble High Court was the undertaking given by the petitioner in the said Writ Petition as referred to in Para 4 of the said judgment.
11. In this background, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality/infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 and the present O.A. deserves to be dismissed. 6
Item No. 38/ C-2 O.A. No. 4796/2024
12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
13. Undisputedly, the applicant has submitted his request seeking voluntary retirement on 09.02.2024 from service w.e.f. 08.05.2024.Before the intended date of retirement, the applicant has submitted his representation dated 06.05.2024 seeking withdrawal/cancellation of his request dated 09.02.2024 under reference.
14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the issue arises as to whether for notseeking withdrawal of the request for voluntary retirement 15 days prior to the intended date of retirement will make the impugned office order dated 03.05.2024 sustainable in law.Such issue is no more res-integra in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Birander Singh Ex DC (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has occasion to deal with the provisions of Rule 43 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and also those of Rule 43 (6) of said rules which requires the notice of withdrawal to be made not less than the 15 days before the intended date of voluntary retirement. The Hon'ble High Court in Birander Singh Ex DC (supra) has also considered at length the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balram Gupta (supra) and J. N. Srivastava (supra) and various other judgments. In this background, for precision we do not consider it 7 Item No. 38/ C-2 O.A. No. 4796/2024 necessary to incorporate the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court being referred and relied by the learned counsel for the applicant, more particularly, in view of the fact that those judgments have been considered by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Birander Singh Ex DC (supra). Paras 3, 14, 19 to 26 of the Birander Singh Ex DC (supra) read as under:-
"3. It is a conceded position between learned Counsels that the petitioner was governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 20212. Rule 433 of the CCS (Pension) Rules deals with the right to seek voluntary retirement. Rule 43(6) permits a government servant to withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement only with the specific approval of the authority who sanctions voluntary retirement. The proviso to rule 43(6) requires the notice of withdrawal to be made not less than 15 days before the intended date of voluntary retirement.
4. We may note, here, that the petitioner was required by the respondent, at the time of applying for voluntary retirement, to submit an undertaking that he would not withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. A certificate to that effect was submitted by the petitioner which reads, thus:
"UNDERTAKING CERTIFICATE I, Birander Singh, Deputy Commandant (IRLA No. 40904351) of 165 Bn BSF, have tendered the notice of voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31/01/2023 due to wife sickness. I, do hereby undertake that I will not withdraw the notice of voluntary retirement tendered by me under any circumstances.
Place: Indreshwar Nagar (J&K) (Birander Singh)
Dated, the 30 Oct'2022 IRLA No. 40904351
Deputy Commandant
165 Bn BSF
Indreshwar Nagar
Jammu (J&K)"
*** *** ***
14. The issue is squarely covered by the decisions in Balram Guptaand J N Srivastava as well as our decision in Kande Mahender. Therules which were before the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta were pari materia to Rule 43 which is subject matter of consideration in the present case.
*** *** ***
19. Such an undertaking, for which there is no justification in any rule, regulation or statutory instruction, in our opinion, cannot operateas estoppel against the petitioner, insofar as his right to seekwithdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement is concerned. Thepetitioner's right to seek withdrawal of his notice of 8 Item No. 38/ C-2 O.A. No. 4796/2024 voluntaryretirement is envisaged by Rule 43(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, theonly two conditions which apply being that the withdrawal must be 15days prior to the date from which the voluntary retirement would takeeffect and that the withdrawal has to be with the approval of theconcerned authority.
20. Needless to say and as the Supreme Court has held in Balram Gupta, the approval cannot be refused except on valid grounds. If there is a change in the circumstances, the employee would be entitledto seek withdrawal of his notice of voluntary retirement.
21. This Court has also noted in Kande Mahender that the conceptof "change in circumstances" has been given an expansive interpretation in Balram Gupta. In the present case, the withdrawalwas sought on the ground of domestic circumstances which hadintervened between the petitioner's request for voluntary retirementand his request to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement.
22. Given the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Balram Gupta and J N Srivastava, which has been followed by this Court in Kande Mahender, we are of the opinion that the respondents'decision to refuse the petitioner's request for withdrawal of hisvoluntary retirement is not sustainable in law.
23. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23 September 2023 is quashed and set aside. The request for withdrawing the applicationfor voluntary retirement shall be treated as having been accepted bythe respondents.
24. The petitioner would, therefore, be entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, including continuity in servicebut without any back wages.
25. The direction for reinstating the petitioner in service will take place after the petitioner has refunded the amount that has been paid tohim by way of retiral benefits consequent to voluntary retirement.
26. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms."
15. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Birander Singh Ex DC (supra) is not applicable, we are of the considered view that the same rule i.e. Rule 43 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was under consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. We find that to some extent, the case of the applicant in present O.A. is on stronger footing inasmuch as at no point of time the applicant herein has given any undertaking that he will not withdraw his request dated 09.02.2024 seeking voluntary retirement. Furthermore, we cannot ignore the fact that 9 Item No. 38/ C-2 O.A. No. 4796/2024 while accepting the request of the applicant seeking voluntary retirement has been dealt by the respondents taking into account his being on EOL on account of private affair, being declared dies non for 761 days as well. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balram Gupta (supra) has held as under:-
"We hold, therefore, that there was no valid reason for withholding the permission, by the respondent. We hold further that there has been compliance with the guidelines because the appellant has indicated that there was a change in the circumstances, namely, the persistent and personal requests from the staff members and relations which changed his attitude towards continuing in Government service and induced the appellant to withdraw the notice. In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange one's future with any amount of certainty, a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardize Government or administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement in the facts and circumstances of this case. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The court cannot but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out" uncomfortable employees. As a model employer the government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees."
16. In the light of the aforesaid facts and law, the present O.A. is allowed with the following directions:-
i. The action of the respondents in not accepting the applicant's request dated 06.05.2024 to withdraw his request dated 09.02.2024 is held to be illegal.
ii. The impugned order dated 03.05.2024 declaring the applicant as to have voluntary retired from service w.e.f.
08.05.2024 (After-noon) is also held to be illegal and accordingly, set aside.10
Item No. 38/ C-2 O.A. No. 4796/2024 iii. The applicant will be reinstated in service. The applicant
shall be entitled for all consequential benefits i.e. continuity in service, arrears of salary and wages, increments etc. iv. The aforesaid directions shall be complied with by the respondents as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six weeks of receipt of certified copy of this Order.
17. Pending M.A(s)., if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R. N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /neetu/