# Union of India v. R.A. Pandey

- **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 337
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-03-04
- **Case number:** Service Bench No. 1855 of 2000
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, Zaki Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-v-r-a-pandey-42504
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Servicewithdrawl
of
voluntary
retirementpetitioner
applied
for
voluntary
retirement
on
14.05.1993-made
effective
on
31.08.1993-on
request
26.08.1993
moved
withdrawl
for
retirement-held-upto
31.08.1993
relation
of
master
and
servant
continuing -can apply for withdrawl-but
no salary payable during period of non
discharge of duty-but for other purpose
such period be counted in service.

Held: Para-6

In the present case, admittedly, the
claimant-respondent
had
moved
an
application
for
voluntary
retirement
w.e.f.
31.8.1993,
hence,
it
was
incumbent
upon
the
petitioner
to
consider the claimant's application dated
27.8.1993 keeping in view the fact that
by
that
date
master
and
servant
relationship
persists.
Application
for
withdrawal should have been allowed by
the petitioner. The judgement and order
passed by the learned tribunal seems to
be based on well appreciation of law on
the issue involved.
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Case Law discussed:
1987 (Supp) SCC 228; (1996) 8 SCC 283;

## Text

1 All] Union of India Vs. R.A. Pandey
337
conjectures should never be allowed to
influence the verdict of the court as in
such cases giving benefit of doubt to the
accused will be counterproductive and
destructive of the system of delivery of
justice
in
criminal
cases
having
repercussions on the existence of every
civilised and peaceful society. The courts
will have to be cautious and prudent to
secure the ends of justice."

11. In the facts of this case in the
application it was also mentioned that in
the reconstructed file, challan lash, photo
lash, letter to CMO, letter to RI are not
available.

12. These are the documents which
form part of the inquest report and are
sent with the inquest report. In a criminal
trial these documents does not assume
much importance and are formal in
nature. It is the substantial evidence of the
witnesses on which the decision has to be
taken. The petitioners have also not
pointed out any ground or any reason
showing their prejudice which they
apprehends in the absence of these
documents, therefore, all these grounds
appears to have been raised simply to
further delay the disposal of a very old
sessions trial.

13. In view of the discussion made
above, I do not find any illegality in the
impugned
order
necessitating
the
interference of this Court, hence, the
petition being devoid of merit, deserves to
be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

14. Trial court is directed to
conclude the trial expeditiously as the
same is very old.
---------

 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAKI ULLAH KHAN, J.

Service Bench No. 1855 of 2000

Union of India

...Petitioner
Versus
R.A. Pandey

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Qamar Hasan Rizvi
Sri I.H. Farooqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.U. Pandey, Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey
Sri Ram Lagan Mishra

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Servicewithdrawl
of
voluntary
retirementpetitioner
applied
for
voluntary
retirement
on
14.05.1993-made
effective
on
31.08.1993-on
request
26.08.1993
moved
withdrawl
for
retirement-held-upto
31.08.1993
relation
of
master
and
servant
continuing -can apply for withdrawl-but
no salary payable during period of non
discharge of duty-but for other purpose
such period be counted in service.

Held: Para-6

In the present case, admittedly, the
claimant-respondent
had
moved
an
application
for
voluntary
retirement
w.e.f.
31.8.1993,
hence,
it
was
incumbent
upon
the
petitioner
to
consider the claimant's application dated
27.8.1993 keeping in view the fact that
by
that
date
master
and
servant
relationship
persists.
Application
for
withdrawal should have been allowed by
the petitioner. The judgement and order
passed by the learned tribunal seems to
be based on well appreciation of law on
the issue involved.
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013
Case Law discussed:
1987 (Supp) SCC 228; (1996) 8 SCC 283;

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,
J)

1. Heard learned Standing counsel
appeared on behalf of the petitioner and
Shri Ram Lagan Mishra learned counsel
for the respondents.

2. Instant writ petition has been
preferred under Article 226 of the
constitution of India against the impugned
order dated 28.8.2000 (Annexure -1 to the
writ petition) passed in O.A. No. 879 of
1993 by Central Administrative Tribunal,
Lucknow whereby application moved by
the claimant respondent has been allowed
with regard to voluntary retirement.

3. The brief facts of the present
controversy relates to the circumstances
when petitioner has moved an application
on 14.5.1993 seeking voluntary retirement
w.e.f.
31.8.1993.
However,
claimant
respondent withdrawn the application with
regard to voluntary retirement on 27.8.1993.
According to the petitioner's counsel, it was
accepted
on
26.8.1993. Claimantrespondents had approached the Tribunal
with the prayer that since, application was
moved
for
withdrawal
of
voluntary
retirement before 31.8.1993 and even after
acceptance master and servant relationship
continues up to 31.8.1993, there was no
option before the petitioner except to accept
the withdrawal application moved by the
claimant-respondent on 27.8.1993. It was
pleaded before the Tribunal that since, the
claimant was in service up to 31.8.1993,
the withdrawal application moved by the
respondent before 31.8.1993 should have
been
accepted
and
application
for
voluntary retirement should be treated as
withdrawn. The tribunal had relied upon
Apex court judgements reported in 1987
(Supp) SCC 228, Balram Gupta Vs.
Union of India and another followed by
one another judgement reported in (1996)
8 SCC 283, Balbir Singh Negi Vs. Union
of India and others.

4. In the case of Balram Gupta
(supra)
their
Lordship
of
Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that an application
may be withdrawn before the intended
date of voluntary retirement.

5. In the case of Balbir Singh Negi
(supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated
that till master and servant relationship is
effective
an
application
may
be
withdrawn. The relevant portion from the
judgement of Balbir Singh Negi (supra) is
reproduced as under:-

"The
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner sought to rely upon the
judgement of this court in Balram Gupta
Vs. Union of India in which this Court
had held that a government servant after
making the application but before it
becomes effective and the relation ship of
master and servant ceases to operate, is
entitled to withdraw the resignation."

6. In the present case, admittedly,
the claimant-respondent had moved an
application for voluntary retirement w.e.f.
31.8.1993, hence, it was incumbent upon
the petitioner to consider the claimant's
application dated 27.8.1993 keeping in
view the fact that by that date master and
servant relationship persists. Application
for withdrawal should have been allowed
by the petitioner. The judgement and
order passed by the learned tribunal seems
to be based on well appreciation of law on
the
issue
involved.
1 All] Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State of U.P.
339

7. However, so far as, question of
salary is concerned, since, the claimantrespondent had not discharged duty, he
seems to be not entitled for payment of
arrears of salary for the period when
respondent had not discharged duties.

8. Shri Ram Lagan Mishra learned
counsel for the respondent submits that
claimant was restored in service in
pursuance the judgement of tribunal and
continued in service up to till the age of
superannuation i.e. on 30.11.2007.

9. The impugned order dated
28.8.2000 is liable to be modified and is
modified to the extent that the claimantrespondent is not entitled for arrears of
salary for the period when he was not in
job but for all other purposes, the claimant
respondent shall deem to be in service and
post retiral dues shall be assessed in
accordance to rules. Tribunal's order
stands modified accordingly.

10..Writ
petition
disposed
of
accordingly.
---------
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.03.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR,J.

Service Single No. 1941 of 2000

Smt. Asha Devi

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.R. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
U.P. Financial Rules (financial Hand Book
Vol. II Part 2 to 4- Full salary during
suspension period-after reinstatementpetitioner a police constable placed
under
suspension
on
21.12.2000reinstated on 17.11.2001-till death no
disciplinary proceeding initiated-entitled
for full salary during suspension periodorder impugned giving only subsistence
allowance-quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anil Kumar, J)

1. Heard Sri B.R. Singh, learned
counsel for petitioner, learned State
counsel and perused the record.

2. Facts of the present case are that
initially one Sri Brij Nath Ram working
on the post of Head Constable while he
was posted at Police Station Kamlapur,
District Sitapur, an FIR has been lodged
in respect to the incidence under Section
323/224 IPC and Section 29 of the Police
Act on the ground that one Sri Tahsildar
Singh, accused in a Gangster Act has run
away from the police custody.

3. Subsequently, in the said
incidence, the petitioner was placed under
suspension by order dated 21.12.2000,
revoked by order dated 12.11.2001 passed
by Superintendent of Police, Sitapur. In
the said matter, he filed a Writ Petition
No. 1347 (SS) of 2006 ( Brij Nath Ram
Vs. State of U.P. and others), disposed of
by means of the order dated 17.04.2006,
relevant portion quoted as under:-

"Heard Sri Sajiv Pandey, holding
brief of Sri S.P. Tripathi, learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel.

The grievance of the petitioner is that
vide order dated 21.12.2000 he was