R. SASI KUMAR V. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

OP (CAT)/59/2022

AI Insights

R. Sasi Kumar, a former stenographer in the Income Tax Department, filed an Original Application challenging the dismissal of his claim for service benefits after a long period of inactivity following his resignation in 1981. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application, citing abandonment of service and delay in seeking redress. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing the principles of delay and laches, and the rules regarding leave and resignation, which stipulate that a government servant cannot be on leave for more than five continuous years and that a resignation, unless withdrawn in public interest, leads to forfeiture of past service.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 760100 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: State of Tamil Nadu v. Seshachalam, State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray, State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & others v. T T Murali Babu
• Laws Referred To: Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHANDRAN; R ANJALI
• Keywords: Delay and laches; Service Benefits; Abandonment of service; Resignation withdrawal
• Section: 12; 26

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI FRIDAY, THE 7TH 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 KUMAR AGED 72 YEARS FORMER STENOGRAPHER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, A.WARD, SATNA (MP II). NOW RESIDING AT THOPPIL HOUSE, PARUMALA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689626 BY ADVS. T.KABIL CHANDRAN R.ANJALI RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE SATNA, SATNA (MP), PIN - 485001 2 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, NAPIER TOWN, JABALPUR (MP), PIN - 482001 3 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CCA), MP & CHATTISGARH, BHOPAL (MP), PIN - 462011 THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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 7th day of October 2022) Basant Balaji J. , This Original Petition is filed challenging the order dated 17.6.2022 in OA. No.180/00567/2019 on the files of the Central Administrative 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 to grant service benefits to the applicant. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dismissed the application. 3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Original Petition are as follows: The petitioner joined the Income Tax department on 25.2.1969 and was working as Stenographer in various places of Madhya Pradesh from 1969 onwards. During the second half of 1980 he proceeded on leave, and it was extended twice 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 extension of leave would be granted, and he was directed to report back to duty. Instead of joining the duty, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 1.8.1981. On 5.9.1986 the petitioner submitted a resignation withdrawal application along with the fitness certificate from the Medical Officer. From 1986 to 2017 the petitioner was filing representations one after the another. Ultimately by Ext.A10 communication dated 12.3.2019 he was informed that the application filed claiming service benefits is rejected. Challenging Ext.A10, the petitioner filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. 4. A reply statement was filed by the respondents in which it was contended that the Original Application is hopelessly barred by limitation and that he is claiming benefits after 40 years of his resignation. The petitioner joined the department during February 1969, and he continued service till February 1981. Though leave was granted to him he was directed to join duty. But he did not do so, and he submitted resignation in the year 1981. Thereafter, in 1986 after a lapse of 5 years, an application 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 and the third correspondence in the year 2016. Thus, the application is hopelessly barred by laches. The respondents also contended that as per Rule 12 of Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 (for short ‘the CSS Rules’), no Government servant shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding 5 years. The petitioner, after filing his resignation application in 1981, did not join the department. Therefore, he is deemed to have abandoned his service and the question of accepting the resignation does not arise. It was also contended that under Rule 26 of the CSS Rules, a resignation from a service or post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in public interest by appointing authority entails for forfeiture of past service. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs. 5. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. An additional reply was also filed by the respondents. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the merits and dismissed the Original application. 6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner proceeded on leave 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 department informing that no further extension would be granted and directing him to report back, the petitioner did not join duty. 7. Annex.R(2) is the letter dated 18.2.1982 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax informing the petitioner about the amounts due to the department and directed the petitioner to clear it for consideration of the resignation letter. Though he responded to the letter by issuing a reply, the petitioner did not take any step to join duty nor clear the arrears. His request for recalling the resignation was filed after a period of 5 years from the date on which the resignation letter was submitted. Hence it can be taken that he had abandoned the service. Though according to the petitioner, he had filed repeated representations, he has not approached any legal Forum for redressal of his grievance and the Original Application was filed before the Tribunal only in the year 2019 i.e.,after a period of 38 years from the date on which the resignation letter was submitted. 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 factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a Government servant may deprive him of the 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]. The same dictum was laid down in the decisions reported in State of Orissa v. Arun Kumar Patnaik [(1976) 3 SCC 579]. Similarly, in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & others v. T T Murali Babu in Civil appeal No.1941 of 2014 it was reiterated that making repeated representations is not a satisfactory explanation for delay. 10. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that resignation letter submitted by him in the year 1981 was never accepted and hence he had to be deemed as in service. Though he has filed a letter recalling resignation in the year 1986, it was also not accepted. So, by no stretch of imagination, 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 service without the benefits that accrued to him over the years. 11. It may be noted that if the resignation is not accepted by the department, then the petitioner is deemed to be in service. He was directed to report for duty before the leave period was over, stating that no further extension of leave would be granted. In such a case keeping out of service for a period of five year and thereafter submitting application for recalling of the resignation may not be said to be a valid application and it is only abandonment of service. Moreover as per Rule 12 of the CSS Rules’, the maximum amount of continuous leave that a Government servant can take is five years. Admittedly the petitioner has not taken any leave nor it was sanctioned and he was out of service for a period of five years. So, it is a case of abandonment of service and the petitioner has left the job. The Tribunal has appreciated the merits of the case considered the relevant Rules as well as the dictum of the honorable Apex Court and held that the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs and accordingly 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 we see no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The Original 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 A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONDUCT CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT DATED 14.08.1980 Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 01.08.1981 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED VERSION Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION WITHDRAWAL LETTER DATED 29.10.1986 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE DATED 05.09.1986 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 27.11.2018 Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 30.12.2018 Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure R1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 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. 180/00567/2019 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 "