CWP No. 12507 CAT of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 12507 CAT of 2011 Date of decision 19 . 7.2011 D.K.Tandon ..Petitioner Versus . Union of India and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr.DK Bhatti , Advocate for the petitioner 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 12.5.2011 passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that the petitioner cannot agitate his claim by filing Original Application on 21.1.2010 because cause of action had arisen to him on 27.7.2006. On merits, the Tribunal has held that cause of action of the petitioner might have been meritorious in as much as after applying for voluntary retirement under VRS on 28.4.2006 he applied for its withdraw on 1.5.2006. However, his request for voluntary retirement was accepted on 6.5.2006 after filing of an application for withdrawal. He was accordingly relieved from service (A.4). He accepted all the monetary benefits under VRS devised by respondent. on 27.7.2006. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner preferred to accept his relieving as well as whole of the payments under the voluntary retirement scheme (VRS). If he was aggrieved CWP No. 12507 CAT of 2011 2 then he should have approached the Tribunal at the earliest date but he filed Original Application on 21.1.2010. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from the following para of the order: “ 10. Even otherwise, the applicant cannot wish away the effect of the fact that he did not raise any objection when he was relieved from duty on 27.7.2006 and the further fact that he accepted the monetary compensation of Rs. 21,90,993/- without any demur. The fact, thus, that there is delay of about four years in the filing of the OA and also the fact that the applicant got relieved from duty and accepted the admissible monetary benefits without raising any objection, would disable the applicant from relying upon the judgement rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (supra). 11. We do not , otherwise, differ with the applicant when a plea is raised on his behalf that the voluntary retirement option could have been validly withdrawn by him before the acceptance thereof came to be announced to him. As noticed by us in an earlier part of this order, there is no documentation available on record to indicate that the acceptance of the voluntary retirement option (though accepted on the day of filing itself) ever got to be indicated to the applicant prior to issuance of AnnexurfeA.4 dated 6.5.2006. The view advocated on behalf of the applicant, in support of the legal proposition aforementioned, is fully supported by a Apex Court pronouncement in Food Corporation of India and others v. Ramesh Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 1611 of 2006 decided on 8.8.2007 and also another judgement rendered by the Apex Court in Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project and Development India Ltd,. And another (2002) RC-SC 131.” 2. It is thus evident that the petitioner has been non suited on the ground of four years delay . CWP No. 12507 CAT of 2011 3 3. We have heard learned counsel at a considerable length and are of the view that in cases involving voluntary retirement on the basis of the request made by an employee the delay assumes added significance because quashing of order accepting voluntary retirement would result into reinstatement of such an employe. If an employee has delayed the filing of an Original Application to the extent of four years then the employer would be deprived of the opportunity to take such an employee back in job. On the one hand the employer is deprived of taking work from his employee and on the other hand quashing of order of voluntary retirement and his relieving on 27.7.2006 may result into counting of his past service for the purposes of pension particularly when he has retained huge amount of Rs. 21,90,993/- since the date of relieving i.e. 27.7.2006. Accordingly we are of the view that the writ petition lacks merit and the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this Court. 4. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar Judge (Gurdev Singh) 19.7.2011 Judge okg