IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 20.01.2010 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA W.P.No.903 of 2010 T.J. Rajendran ..Petitioner ..Vs.. 1. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirappalli. 3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104. ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of certiorari, after calling for the concerned records relating to the order dated 28.10.2009 given in O.A. no.660 of 2008 passed by the third respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Ramaswamy Rajarajan O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.660 of 2008, whereby the relief sought for by the petitioner was denied. 2. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal and equally here also is that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Railways as Khalasi in the year 1974 and was promoted as Welder Artizan Grade III in the year 1982 and therefore as Grade II in the year 1986 and Grade I in the year 1989. Thereafter, he has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ got further promotion in the year 2003 in the pay scale of Rs.5150- 8000. 3. While he was working as Master Craftsman, due to family circumstances and health condition, he gave requisition for Voluntary Retirement on 18.7.2005. He also went on medical leave from 2.8.2005. There was no communication from the respondents with regard to the request for voluntary retirement. He thought that the same was accepted with effect from 19.10.2005 i.e. after expiry of three months notice period and he has not attended duty from that date. 4. Thereafter, several representations were made for settlement of retirement benefit. One of such representation was made on 11.2.2008, but the same were not attended to by the respondents. Under such circumstances, there arose a necessity for seeking the relief. It was also urged that he has completed thirty years of service on 18.7.2005 and hence, he was eligible to go on voluntary retirement on expiry of three months notice period. Though there was no acceptance as required, he is also entitled for retirement benefits. 5. The defence plea by the respondents/Railways before the Tribunal was that the petitioner has never made any requisition for Voluntary Retirement as contended by him on 18.7.2005. He was on unauthorized absence and a charge memo was issued to him, which was sent by registered post, but the same was returned as "Door locked". An enquiry was initiated under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 and witnesses were examined on the side of department and a speaking order came to be passed, imposing a penalty of removal from service. Consequent to the order of removal from service, a decision was taken by the competent authority to sanction 60% of both gratuity and pension as compassionate allowance and further it was also communicated, but the same was not received by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, he was not entitled for any relief. The Tribunal took the view that the relief asked for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. 6. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner put forth his requisition for voluntary retirement on 18.7.2005 and it was actually placed before the higher Authority. The same was not replied for a period of three months. A Rule to be presumed that the same is accepted. The period commenced from 18.7.2005 onwards and thirty years was over on that date. Hence, he was entitled for entire benefit of gratuity and pension. 7. Learned counsel added further that the Tribunal has not taken into account the fact that in the month of September, 2005, a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ communication was addressed by the wife of the petitioner and the telegraphic message would clearly indicate that there was a requisition for voluntary retirement on 18.7.2005. Learned counsel added further that no question of unauthorized absence would arise since the petitioner tendered his voluntary retirement requisition on 18.7.2005. There was no reply and no enquiry was initiated and the decision taken by them is also illegal. In such circumstances, it is a fit case that the Tribunal should have passed an order in favour of the petitioner and the order passed by the Tribunal has got to be set aside and it should be ordered with entire benefits. 8. After hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that this writ petition does not require an admission also. It is not in controversy that he was in Railway Service during the relevant period as Master Craftsman. It was well admitted by the respondents/Railways. The only contention putforth by the petitioner before the Tribunal and equally here also is that he tendered a requisition of V.R.S. on 18.7.2005. But no material was placed before this Court. It was placed before the Authority also cannot be accepted. 9. Even assuming such requisition for Voluntary Retirement was given, he should have pursued the same. The communication now relied on by the petitioner is not by the petitioner but by his wife. Under such circumstances, the reason as to why the wife of the employee sent such communication could not be understood. Even the case of the petitioner would indicate that he gave requisition for voluntary retirement and thereafter, he went on medical leave from 2.8.2005, had it been true that he went on medical leave, he would have applied for the same. That would also indicate that there is no material placed before the Court to prove the same. 10. Under the circumstances, the contention put forth by the petitioner that he made a requisition for voluntary retirement has got to be rejected. The entire case of the petitioner rests on the material fact that he gave requisition for voluntary retirement, but the said fact remains unproved. Hence the case of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, it was the case of the respondents/Railways that it was actually unauthorized absence, following which an enquiry has been conducted and thereafter, he was removed from service and consequently, he was given 60% gratuity and pension as compassionate allowance. 11. In such circumstances, there is no merit even to admit the writ petition since it lacks proof in respect of the material https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ facts on which entire case rests. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ssa. To 1. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Divisional Personnel Officer, Tiruchirappalli Division, Tiruchirappalli. 3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104. + 1 c.c. to Mr. S. Ramaswamy Rajarajan, Advocate. S.R.No.3542. W.P.No.903 of 2010 KJ (CO) GSK 29.01.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/