Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)S R Goyal vs Govt. Of National Capital Territory Of ... on 24 February, 2010
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.
1