Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

a. The Respondents' contention that as the Applicant re-joined on direction of the Respondent, it negates his voluntary retirement after the expiry of the 90 days-notice period, is misconceived. Withdrawal of a voluntary retirement application must be clear and unequivocal. As submitted above, applicant re-joined only under the mistaken impression, created by the Respondents' own correspondence, that his voluntary retirement request would not be processed, unless he re-joined and got his leave regularized. The Respondents misled and compelled the applicant to comply with their directions. Therefore, it cannot amount to withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. 




                        2025.10.15
RAVI KANOJIA            16:21:01
                        +05'30'
     Item No. 27/C-1                           30          OA No. 490/2016 with OA No. 497/2016


        7.8           Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the

contention of the respondents that the applicant failed to report back to the cadre and was willfully absent for personal reasons is factually incorrect and constitutes a misrepresentation of facts. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that the applicant, in fact, reported back and joined the State Government on three different occasions. On each of these occasions, he submitted requests for regularization of his period of absence (by adjusting due leave) and for acceptance of his voluntary retirement. What is even more surprising is the State Government's assertion that the applicant's "joining was not formal." Describing his joining reports as "informal" is a complete misrepresentation of facts. On each occasion, specific orders were passed by the Chief Secretary or the Appointment Secretary on the applicant's joining letter, which was personally submitted to them.