WP(C) 6312/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.C.UPADHYAY (Amitava Roy,J) In challenge is the judgment and order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the Cen tral Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (for short, hereafter ref erred as the ’Tribunal’) in O.A. No.200/2009 declining the petitioner’s request for a direction to the respondents herein to reinstate him in service without i nsisting for deposit of 50% of the amount of Rs.15,81,648.00 received by him by way of retiral benefits following the order of his voluntary retirement. We have heard Mr DK Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr AK Sarkar, learned Standing Counsel, NF Railways. The petitioner, who joined as Assistant Mechanical Engineer(Probationer) , Grade- A in the service of the Railways, was duly promoted as Chief Mechanica l Engineer. While serving as such, he submitted an application on 20.1.2003 to the concerned respondent authority seeking voluntary retirement with effect fro m 1.5.2003 on personal grounds. He thereafter submitted a letter dated 21.4.2003 to the Secretary, Railway Board seeking to withdraw his decision to g o for voluntary retirement and requested the authority concerned to accept the w ithdrawal of his option earlier o expressed. Meanwhile, the Railway Board, actin g on the previous letter of the petitioner, accepted his offer for voluntary ret irement with effect from 30.4.2003(AN). His request for withdrawal was rejected whereafter, he preferred an appeal before His Excellency, the President of Ind ia. As a very special case ,on the ground of mercy, his request for withdrawal was acceded to and he was directed to be reinstated in service with effect from the date on which he would resume duty. The order mentioned about realization f rom him by the Railway administration in terms of the relevant provisions conta ined in the Railway Services(Pension)Rules,1993 all the retirement dues already received by him. The petitioner, however, did not pay back the amount received i .e. Rs.15,81,648/-. As the petitioner’s offer to recover the amount from his sal ary on reinstatement was not acceded to, he consequently was not reinstated. In this backdrop, he approached the leaned Tribunal with O.A. No.253/2007 which was disposed of on 19.9.2007 with the following operative directions :- Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court directs the applica nt that the 50% amount 15,81,648/- Rs as shown in (Annexure-S ) dated 17.02.2006 will be deposited within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and after depositing the said amount the respondents shall reinstate the applicant in service within four weeks thereafter. It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to recover any further amount from the salary of the applicant or otherwise by a separate order. Since, there are so many prayers in the O.A. thi s Court further directs that the applicant shall make comprehensive representati on for his grievances before the Respondents and on receipt of such representat ion the respondents shall consider and dispose of the same accordingly. In other words, in terms of the said order, the petitioner was to be reinstated in service on deposit of 50% of the amount of Rs.15,81,648/- within four weeks therefrom. Admittedly, the petitioner did not make the deposit even thereafter and instead approached the Tribunal again with an application challenging the de liberate disobedience of the said order which was registered as C.P. No.11/200 8. Meanwhile, being aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2007, the respondent Railways approached this Court with WP( C) No.249/2008 which was eventually dism issed on 25.6.2008. The order would reveal that the dismissal was not on merit s, but for the failure on the part of the Railways to take action against the l earned counsel who had consented to the reinstatement of the applicant on deposi t of 50% of the retiral benefits received by him. This was done following the st and of the Railways that the learned Standing Counsel was not authorized to make such a concession. The petitioner approached the learned Tribunal with O.A. No.200/2010 com plaining against the failure on the part of the Railways to reinstate him in se rvice. As, by judgment and order impugned, such relief has been denied to him, h e having failed to deposit the amount in terms of the decision dated 19.9.07, t he petitioner is before this court seeking redress. This court by order dated 29.11.2010 required the petitioner to first de posit an amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs in the Registry of this Court to test the bonaf ide of the cause pursued by him in the instant proceeding. Though time was gran ted to him on more than one occasion thereafter to comply with the said direc tion, he has failed to do so till date. Mr Sharma, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is not in a posi tion to deposit even single farthing of the amount received by him. This, accor ding to this court, demonstrates total lack of bonafide on his part. It passes our comprehension as to how an amount of Rs.15,81,648/- received by him has bee n spent by him in the interregnum leaving him penniless making him unable to de posit a single farthing before this Court when such deposit had been consistent ly made a pre condition for his reinstatement in service. In the backdrop of facts as recited hereinabove, it is apparent that th e petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service on the condition of retu rning the retiral benefits received by him. There was no decision or order waivi ng the deposit the amount of Rs.15,81,648/-. On the other hand, he had been req uired to make deposit of 50% of the said amount by way of substantial relaxatio n of the rigour of such pre condition. The condition posed by him as a justific ation for not making such deposit in the opinion of this Court, displays an i nsolent high-handed and disagreeable conduct unbecoming of a public servant. Noticeably, as the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 19.9.2007 of the learned Tribunal rendered in Original Application No.253/2007 had been sustained by this Court in WP( C) No.249/2008, we see no co mpelling or persuasive reason to differ therefrom. In the above view of the matter, having regard to the reasons recorded b y the learned Tribunal in the judgment and order impugned herein, we see no reas on whatsoever to warrant any interference therewith. This petition lacks in meri t and is dismissed. No costs.