Op (Cat)/59/2022 Of R. Sasi Kumar v. The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944 OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 OA 180/567/2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER/S: R. SASI KUMARAGED 72 YEARSFORMER STENOGRAPHER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,A.WARD, SATNA (MP II).NOW RESIDING AT THOPPIL HOUSE,PARUMALA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689626BY ADVS.T.KABIL CHANDRANR.ANJALI RESPONDENT/S: 1THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXRANGE SATNA, SATNA (MP), PIN - 4850012THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IICENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN,JABALPUR (MP), PIN - 4820013THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CCA), MP & CHATTISGARH, BHOPAL (MP), PIN - 462011 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -2- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR& BASANT BALAJI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - O.P. (CAT) .NO. 59 OF 2022 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J U D G M E N T (Dated this the 7[th] day of October 2022) Basant Balaji J., This Original Petition is filed challenging the order dated17.6.2022 in OA. No.180/00567/2019 on the files of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam bench. 2. The petitioner filed the Original Application for calling records leading to Exts.A1 to A10 and to set aside Ext.A10 and togrant service benefits to the applicant. The Tribunal, by theimpugned order, dismissed the application. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Original Petition are as follows: The petitioner joined the Income Taxdepartment on 25.2.1969 and was working as Stenographer invarious places of Madhya Pradesh from 1969 onwards. During thesecond half of 1980 he proceeded on leave, and it was extendedtwice on medical grounds for 30 days each. Later the department OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -3- issued letter to the petitioner informing that no further extensionof leave would be granted, and he was directed to report back toduty. Instead of joining the duty, the petitioner submitted hisresignation on 1.8.1981. On 5.9.1986 the petitioner submitted aresignation withdrawal application along with the fitnesscertificate from the Medical Officer. From 1986 to 2017 thepetitioner was filing representations one after the another.Ultimately by Ext.A10 communication dated 12.3.2019 he wasinformed that the application filed claiming service benefits isrejected. Challenging Ext.A10, the petitioner filed the OriginalApplication before the Tribunal. 4. A reply statement was filed by the respondents in whichit was contended that the Original Application is hopelesslybarred by limitation and that he is claiming benefits after 40years of his resignation. The petitioner joined the departmentduring February 1969, and he continued service till February1981. Though leave was granted to him he was directed to joinduty. But he did not do so, and he submitted resignation in theyear 1981. Thereafter, in 1986 after a lapse of 5 years, anapplication was filed for withdrawal of his resignation application. OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -4- 4. A reply statement was filed by the respondents in whichit was contended that the Original Application is hopelesslybarred by limitation and that he is claiming benefits after 40years of his resignation. The petitioner joined the departmentduring February 1969, and he continued service till February1981. Though leave was granted to him he was directed to joinduty. But he did not do so, and he submitted resignation in theyear 1981. Thereafter, in 1986 after a lapse of 5 years, anapplication was filed for withdrawal of his resignation application. OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -4- The next correspondence is made by the petitioner in 2014 andthe third correspondence in the year 2016. Thus, the applicationis hopelessly barred by laches. The respondents also contendedthat as per Rule 12 of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972(for short ‘the CSS Rules’), no Government servant shall begranted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding 5years. The petitioner, after filing his resignation application in1981, did not join the department. Therefore, he is deemed tohave abandoned his service and the question of accepting theresignation does not arise. It was also contended that under Rule26 of the CSS Rules, a resignation from a service or post, unless itis allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by appointingauthority entails for forfeiture of past service. Hence thepetitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs. 5. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by therespondents. An additional reply was also filed by therespondents. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the merits anddismissed the Original application. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner proceeded onleave in the year 1981 and his leave was extended twice for a OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -5- period of 30 days each. To the letter sent by the departmentinforming that no further extension would be granted anddirecting him to report back, the petitioner did not join duty. 7. Annex.R(2) is the letter dated 18.2.1982 issued by theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax informing the petitionerabout the amounts due to the department and directed thepetitioner to clear it for consideration of the resignation letter.Though he responded to the letter by issuing a reply, thepetitioner did not take any step to join duty nor clear the arrears.His request for recalling the resignation was filed after a period of5 years from the date on which the resignation letter wassubmitted. Hence it can be taken that he had abandoned theservice. Though according to the petitioner, he had filed repeatedrepresentations, he has not approached any legal Forum forredressal of his grievance and the Original Application was filedbefore the Tribunal only in the year 2019 i.e.,after a period of 38years from the date on which the resignation letter wassubmitted. 8. The Tribunal relying on the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Seshachalam [(2007) 10 SCC 137], wherein the OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -6- Supreme Court observed that “delay or laches is a relevant factorfor a court of law to determine the question as to whether theclaim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/orlaches on the part of a Government servant may deprive him ofthe benefit which had been given to others … ….” 9. The Tribunal also relied on the decision reported in State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray [(1977) 3 SCC 396]. Thesame dictum was laid down in the decisions reported in State ofOrissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik [(1976) 3 SCC 579]. Similarly, inChennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & othersv. T T Murali Babuin Civil appeal No.1941 of 2014 it wasreiterated that making repeated representations is not asatisfactory explanation for delay. OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -6- Supreme Court observed that “delay or laches is a relevant factorfor a court of law to determine the question as to whether theclaim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/orlaches on the part of a Government servant may deprive him ofthe benefit which had been given to others … ….” 9. The Tribunal also relied on the decision reported in State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray [(1977) 3 SCC 396]. Thesame dictum was laid down in the decisions reported in State ofOrissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik [(1976) 3 SCC 579]. Similarly, inChennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & othersv. T T Murali Babuin Civil appeal No.1941 of 2014 it wasreiterated that making repeated representations is not asatisfactory explanation for delay. 10. The main contention raised by the counsel for thepetitioner is that resignation letter submitted by him in the year1981 was never accepted and hence he had to be deemed as inservice. Though he has filed a letter recalling resignation in theyear 1986, it was also not accepted. So, by no stretch ofimagination, it can be said that he was not an employee.Therefore, the laches is on the part of the department in not OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -7- accepting the resignation and allowing him to go out of servicewithout the benefits that accrued to him over the years. 11. It may be noted that if the resignation is not acceptedby the department, then the petitioner is deemed to be inservice. He was directed to report for duty before the leaveperiod was over, stating that no further extension of leave wouldbe granted. In such a case keeping out of service for a period offive year and thereafter submitting application for recalling of theresignation may not be said to be a valid application and it is onlyabandonment of service. Moreover as per Rule 12 of the CSSRules’, the maximum amount of continuous leave that aGovernment servant can take is five years. Admittedly thepetitioner has not taken any leave nor it was sanctioned and hewas out of service for a period of five years. So, it is a case ofabandonment of service and the petitioner has left the job. TheTribunal has appreciated the merits of the case considered therelevant Rules as well as the dictum of the honorable Apex Courtand held that the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs andaccordingly the Original Application was dismissed. 12. On going through the order of the Tribunal, we are in OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -8- full agreement with the findings entered by the Tribunal, and wesee no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. TheOriginal Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. sd A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE dl/OP(CAT)592022 OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -9- APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 59/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES 12. On going through the order of the Tribunal, we are in OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -8- full agreement with the findings entered by the Tribunal, and wesee no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. TheOriginal Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. sd A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE dl/OP(CAT)592022 OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -9- APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 59/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1TRUE COPY OF THE CONDUCT CERTIFICATE OFTHE APPLICANT DATED 14.08.1980THE APPLICANT DATED 14.08.1980Annexure2TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 01.08.1981 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED VERSION DATED 01.08.1981 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED VERSION Annexure A3TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION WITHDRAWALLETTER DATED 29.10.1986LETTER DATED 29.10.1986Annexure A4TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE DATED 05.09.1986DATED 05.09.1986Annexure A5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT08.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTAnnexure A6TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 27.11.201827.11.2018Annexure A7TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 30.12.2018APPLICATION DATED 30.12.2018Annexure A8TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT05.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTAnnexure A9TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2019ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A10TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT12.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTAnnexure R1TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 01.08.1981DATED 01.08.1981 OP (CAT) NO. 59 OF 2022 -10- Annexure R2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.02.1982 Annexure R3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE LETTER DATED 18.02.1982 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT REGARDING OUTSTANDING AMOUNT Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 180/00567/2019 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A. NO. 180/00567/2019 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN O.A. NO. 180/00567/2019 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A. NO. 180/00567/2019STATEMENT IN O.A. NO. 180/00567/2019 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A. NO. 180/00567/2019 DATED 17.06.2022