Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing S R Goyal vs Govt. Of National Capital Territory Of ... on 24 February, 2010

Kukkikatte Krishnamurthy vs Union Of India Through on 25 November, 2011

Submitted. The matter then came up before AS (DP) and Secretary (DP), when, it appears, proposal of JS (OF) was accepted. There is no manner of doubt nor is there any dispute as well that the order rejecting the voluntary retirement of the applicant came to be definitely passed on 29.11.2005, and from the additional affidavit dated 14.07.2005 filed pursuant to orders of the Tribunal as mentioned above, as also from the dispatch resister, it is absolutely clear that the order refusing voluntary retirement request was passed not only within the stipulated time, but it was communicated to the applicant as well. Learned counsel representing the applicant, on earlier occasion had, however, urged that there is manipulation of records, and it is for that reason that we have called for the records. We do not find any manipulation in the records whatsoever. Counsel for the applicant would also contend that assuming that the respondents had communicated refusal of the voluntary retirement request of the applicant and had sent it as well, but the applicant had not received it. In our view, when a letter is sent to an addressee at his known address, there is presumption that it has been received, which may be a rebuttable presumption, but it is the applicant who has to rebut the same. That apart, non-receipt by the applicant of the communication sent to him refusing his request for voluntary retirement may not be fatal. This Tribunal in OA No.1515/2006 in the matter of S. R. Goyal v Government of NCT of Delhi & others, decided on 07.11.2007, when even though rejection of voluntary retirement was sent to the place of posting of the applicant and the authorities thereat communicated it to him later in point of time, held that once the communication to the applicant was beyond the stipulated period, it would be a case of deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement. The said judgment has since been upset by a Division Bench of the Honble High Court of Delhi in two connected writ petitions bearing WP(C) No.146/2008 and 158/2008, vide order dated 30.05.2008. It has been held that it is the date of sending the communication which is important and it is not necessary that the communication should reach the Government servant within three months.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gopal Ram S/O Mol Ram vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 25 May, 2012

It will not be justified for us to allow this OA and direct the respondents to release other pensionary benefits of the applicant, like gratuity and commutation of pension. We can only order for release of leave encashment at this stage to the applicant. However, the gratuity and commutation of pension shall be released only after finalization of the enquiry proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicant cited the judgments of this Tribunal in OA No.1522/2007 in the matter of Daya Nand Sharma v Government of NCT of Delhi, decided on 08.01.2008 and OA No.1178/2008  S. R. Goyal v Government of NCT of Delhi & others, decided on 03.12.2008. We have perused the judgments. In our opinion, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of these judgments.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Unknown vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 31 May, 2011

17. Having applied the ratio by the Principal Bench, as in that case also an order extending the review which has been passed on 91st day was declared invalid. In the present case also, the period of 90 days expired on 27.07.2005 whereas order had been passed on 08.08.2005, which is admittedly beyond the period of 90 days and this ratio decided by the Principal Bench squarely covered the controversy involved in this case. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that they are considering the case of the applicant for revocation of suspension.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kukkikatte Krishnamoorty vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016

There is no manner of doubt nor is there any dispute as well that the order rejecting the voluntary retirement of the applicant came to be definitely passed on 29.11.2005, and from the additional affidavit dated 14.07.2005 filed pursuant to orders of the Tribunal as mentioned above, as also from the dispatch resister, it is absolutely clear that the order refusing voluntary retirement request was passed not only within the stipulated time, but it was communicated to the applicant as well. Learned counsel representing the applicant, on earlier occasion had, however, urged that there is manipulation of records, and it is for that reason that we have called for the records. We do not find any manipulation in the records whatsoever. Counsel for the applicant would also contend that assuming that the respondents had communicated refusal of the voluntary retirement request of the applicant and had sent it as well, but the applicant had not received it. In our view, when a letter is sent to an addressee at his known address, there is presumption that it has been received, which may be a rebuttable presumption, but it is the applicant who has to rebut the same. That apart, non-receipt by the applicant of the communication sent to him refusing his request for voluntary retirement may not be fatal. This Tribunal in OA No.1515/2006 in the matter of S. R. Goyal v Government of NCT of Delhi & others, decided on 07.11.2007, when even though rejection of voluntary retirement was sent to the place of posting of the applicant and the authorities thereat communicated it to him later in point of time, held that once the communication to the applicant was beyond the stipulated period, it would be a case of deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement. The said judgment has since been upset by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in two connected writ petitions bearing WP(C) No.146/2008 and W.P.(C).1268/2016 Page 8 of 10 158/2008, vide order dated 30.05.2008. It has been held that it is the date of sending the communication which is important and it is not necessary that the communication should reach the Government servant within three months."
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document
1