THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.7916 of 2010 ORDER: (Per GMJ) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.738 of 2008 to the extent of it not treating the intervening period i.e., from 10.03.2008 to 04.01.2009 as ‘on duty’ and to direct the respondents for such treatment with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was appointed as Mail Driver in the second respondent’s office in 1972 and since then he has been performing duties as such. In the periodical medical examination held in the month of August, 2004, he was found unfit for the said post and it was declared as such, vide proceedings dated 04.09.2004 issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Bezawada. Later, he was again called for re-medical examination on 16.02.2005 at his request and was found unfit. The respondents directed the petitioner to attend the screening on 27.07.2007 for providing alternative appointment as per the medical de-categorization, but the petitioner expressed his willingness to go for voluntary retirement (VRS) and submitted representation on 02.08.2007 requesting for voluntary retirement from service after three months. The respondents prepared list of candidates opted for VRS wherein the petitioner was at serial No.9. Later, due to domestic problems, the petitioner issued a telegram on 22.02.2008 to the respondents seeking cancellation of VRS and also submitted a representation in that regard on 26.02.2008 to the second respondent much before the effective date of retirement, but the respondents without passing any orders on the pending application for cancellation of VRS, the respondents forced the petitioner retired from service and accordingly proceedings dated 28.02.2008 and 10.03.2008 were issued ordering his retirement with effect from 29.02.2008. These proceedings were challenged before the Tribunal in O.A.No.738 of 2008. The Tribunal, by impugned order dated 31.12.2008, set aside the above proceedings dated 28.02.2008 and 10.03.2008 with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith by providing alternative appointment and also directed to continue him in service till his age of superannuation. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated into service, vide order dated 02.03.2009, and was posted in supernumerary post under the control of senior D.P.O. and is presently working on the same capacity and is about to retire 31.05.2010. The Tribunal, however, ordered that the period from 01.03.2008 to 05.01.2009 shall be treated as leave. Aggrieved to that extent, the petitioner is before this Court. His grievance is that the disputed period ought to have been treated as ‘on duty’. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Tribunal rightly ordered reinstatement of the petitioner into service, it erred in treating the period from 01.03.2008 to 05.01.2009 as leave in view of the fact that on medical grounds the petitioner chosen to take VRS, however, due to domestic problems, he sought cancellation of VRS, and therefore, the disputed period ought to have been treated as ‘on duty’ with all benefits. Smt. Pushpinder Kaur, learned standing counsel for Railways, appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner was not physically present to ‘duty’ in the disputed period and even there are no grounds for treating the disputed period as ‘on duty’ and therefore, the Tribunal rightly ordered for treating the disputed period as ‘leave’. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner himself chosen VRS after he was found unfit for the job and after approval of his VRS, he sought for cancellation of VRS for his own reasons. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ordered reinstatement and treated the disputed period as ‘leave’. Thus, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 12th April, 2010 GHN