SAHEBLAL AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in this case, as brought forth by the applicant and as gleamed from the reply statement of the respondents arc that the applicant was working in the Railways from 1962 and had reached the position of Goods Driver, before he finally retired. He states that he had submitted an application dated 6.2.1991 retirement from the Railways which was accepted vide letter dated 12.3.1991 (Annexures A-3 and A-4). THE retirement was sought w.e.f. 31.5.1991 as seen from Annexure A-3. THE applicant further states that vide letter dated 19.4.1991, however he informed respondent No. 2 that the aforesaid application dated 6.2.1991 may be treated as withdrawn/cancelled. He underscores the fact that this letter was issued well before expiry of three months i.e. before 5.5.1991. THE applicant was informed vide letter dated 31.5.1991 by respondent No. 3, that his application seeking withdrawal/cancellation of request for voluntary retirement had been rejected and that he was to retire w.e.f. 31.5.1991. THE applicant contends that he has been wrongfully retired from the Railway service and that settlement dues paid to him were received under protest.

(2.) Further details are cited in regard to the progress in the case and it is stated that he was informed of his re-employment vide letter dated 30.8.1994 that Railway Board had allowed him to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement and reinstate him in service and that a certain amount was to be paid towards the settlement of dues and interest and that the period in between will he treated as "'dies non". Applicant ultimately rejoined service on 26.6.1995.

(3.) THE respondents have filed a written statement in reply, resisting the claim of applicant and first making a point that the Mumbai Bench has no jurisdiction to try the matter and that the jurisdiction lies with the Principal Bench at New Delhi. We find at the outset that this O.A. is filed on 6.8.1996 and that the applicant had finally retired from service on 31.5.1996. Also that he was a resident of Solapur in Maharastra. Hence, the objection regarding jurisdiction raised by respondents is straightaway rejected. THE respondents further give details about the facts of the case and also take the plea of the application being barred by limitation. It is confirmed that vide order dated 30.8.1994, that the Railway Board had decided to allow the applicant to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement and to reinstate him in service treating the intervening period from 1.6.1991 till the date of joining as dies non. Hence the application is hit by limitation it is contended.