Delhi HC: Voluntary Retirement Cannot Be Cancelled After Acceptance, CRPF Directed to Reconsider Petitioner's Case
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, held that the voluntary retirement of a petitioner, a CRPF officer, could not be cancelled once accepted. The Court ruled that the Respondents had the authority to reject the petitioner’s application for postponement of the retirement date but lacked the justification to cancel the voluntary retirement itself.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner, a CRPF officer who underwent a kidney transplant on May 2, 2016, was transferred to GC, CRPF, Nagpur, on July 30, 2020. Due to his medical condition, he requested a posting in Delhi on medical grounds. This request was rejected on September 7, 2020, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition, which was subsequently dismissed. On March 5, 2021, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement effective June 30, 2021, citing his inability to perform duties due to health concerns. The application was accepted on June 10, 2021. However, the petitioner later sought to postpone the retirement date to July 31, 2021, citing delays in completing formalities for his pension. The respondents rejected this request on June 30, 2021, and directed the petitioner to report for duty at GC Nagpur. The petitioner did not comply, and his voluntary retirement was subsequently cancelled. The petitioner also faced departmental proceedings and was dismissed from service by an order dated July 11, 2022.
COURT'S OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
The Court, in its order dated July 24, 2024, directed the Respondents to reconsider the matter on compassionate grounds. It highlighted the petitioner’s 30 years of service and his medical condition, emphasizing that his request for postponement should not have been dismissed in haste.
On October 30, 2024, a Speaking Order was issued by the DIG, CRPF, rejecting the petitioner’s request for postponement. The Respondents argued that the petitioner, having declared himself fit to resume duties, had failed to provide sufficient reasons for postponing retirement.
The High Court concluded that the Respondents acted improperly by cancelling the petitioner’s voluntary retirement after accepting it. It clarified that the petitioner had only sought postponement, and rejecting this request did not warrant the cancellation of his voluntary retirement.
The Bench further quashed the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and directed that his voluntary retirement be considered effective from June 30, 2021.
Cause Title: BAIKUNTHA NATH DAS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Case No: WP(C) 1446/2023
Date: November-26-2024
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Shalinder Kaur
[Read/Download order]
