Case Details: Union of India vs. Dharmendra Kumar Sahu - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 281 (HC-Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Attau Rahman Masoodi & Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.
-
Ajit Kumar Dwivedi for the Petitioner.
-
Amit Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Respondent, a railway servant, applied for voluntary retirement citing health issues. No order was passed on his application, leading him to file an original application seeking a direction to decide his voluntary retirement request. In the original application, he pleaded completion of more than 22 years of service.
Petitioners-employer admitted before the Tribunal that the respondent had completed more than 22 years of service, and stated that two minor punishments had been imposed on 19.02.2020. The Tribunal allowed the original application and directed the petitioners to grant the respondent’s request for voluntary retirement upon the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days and to pay him all his retirement dues.
Petitioners filed an instant writ challenging the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal.
It was noted that the Master Circular No. 35 issued by the Railway Board does not provide that the request for voluntary retirement of a person who has been awarded a minor punishment cannot be accepted.
Further, petitioners did not controvert the specific plea of the railway servant that he had completed more than 22 years of service; there was no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal by issuing a direction to petitioners to allow the railway servant’s request for voluntary retirement.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the respondent had already been punished for his unauthorised absence from duty and that punishment did not provide that periods during which the respondent remained absent shall not be counted in his service or that he shall not be paid salary for those periods. Thus, there was no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal allowing the original application filed by the respondent.
The post Minor Penalties Don’t Bar Voluntary Retirement Under Master Circular 35 | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
