ACHYUTA NAND UPADHYAY vs NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY

Court
Central Administrative Tribunal

Reserved on:13.10.2026


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD .

Allahabad this, the 15th day of October, 2026.


Original Application No. 117 of 2023

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)

Achyuta Nand Upadhyay, S/o Late Suresh Prasad Upadhyay, R/o
Nuruddin Chak Hindustan Press Street, Near Primary School, P.O.
Moharipur, Gorakhpur, PIN 273007.
. . .Applicant

By Advocate : Shri Deepak Maurya
​ ​
V E R S U S

1.​ Union of India, through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2.​ Principal Chief Personnel Officer, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur.
3.​ Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination), N.E. Railway, Lucknow.
4.​ Senior DPO, North Eastern Railway, Lucknow.

.. . .Respondents
​ ​
By Advocate : Shri Raj Pal Singh

O R D E R


​ Shri Deepak Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri
Raj Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2.​ By means of this OA, the applicants have sought the following
reliefs :
(i) To set aside the order dated 05.07.2016 and 29.07.2016 by which
illegally given approval for Voluntary Retirement of applicant w.e.f.
31.07.2016, and rejected the application moved by applicant for
withdrawing the VRS application.
(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction directing the respondents
to pay the entire retiral benefits to the applicant by treating him in
service till 30.09.2022.

Page 1 of 7
ASHISH

KUMAR

(iii) To issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.


3.​ The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the Original Application,
are that the applicant was initially appointed on compassionate grounds
on 27.07.1991 as a Store Clerk under the PWI, Palia Kalan, Lakhimpur
Kheri, Lucknow Division, and was subsequently promoted to the post of
Senior Clerk on 29.12.1995 after passing the suitability test. He joined
the Vigilance Department of North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, on
04.01.2008 and was due to retire on 30.09.2022. Owing to the death of
his brother and the resulting family circumstances, the applicant
submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 01.03.2016 before
Respondent No. 2. The said application was forwarded to Respondent
No. 3, the appointing authority, and was received in that office on
07.06.2016. The applicant contends that he subsequently withdrew his
VRS application by a letter dated 22.07.2016, before the expiry of the
stipulated notice period; however, his request for withdrawal was
rejected by an order dated 29.07.2016, and his voluntary retirement was
made effective from 31.07.2016. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and
the non-payment of his retiral benefits, the applicant has approached this
Tribunal seeking the reliefs mentioned above.
4.​ The respondents, in their counter reply, have submitted that the
applicant was initially appointed as Establishment Store Clerk on
compassionate grounds vide order dated 09.07.1991 and was
subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 29.12.1995. The
applicant submitted an application for voluntary retirement on
01.03.2016, which was forwarded to the competent appointing authority
and accepted on 01.07.2016, and consequently, an office order dated
05.07.2016 was issued giving effect to his voluntary retirement. The
respondents contended that the applicant submitted a representation
dated 22.07.2016 seeking withdrawal of his voluntary retirement
application after completion of the prescribed notice period on
Page 2 of 7
ASHISH

KUMAR

30.06.2016; therefore, his request was rejected in accordance with the
applicable rules. It was further submitted that the applicant failed to
submit the requisite documents and complete the necessary formalities
for settlement of his retiral benefits despite being required to do so, and
consequently, the payment could not be processed. The respondents
maintained that the applicant's voluntary retirement was accepted by the
competent authority in accordance with the applicable Railway Board
rules and instructions and denied the allegations of illegality raised in the
Original Application.
5.​ The applicant has filed his rejoinder and reiterated the averments
made in the Original Application and disputed the stand taken by the
respondents in their counter affidavit. It is contended that, as per
Railway Board Letter No. E(P&A) I-77/RT-46 dated 09.11.1977, the
application for voluntary retirement was required to be submitted before
the appointing authority, whereas the applicant initially submitted the
same before Respondent No. 2, who forwarded it to Respondent No. 3,
the competent appointing authority, where it was received on
07.06.2016. The applicant has submitted that his application for
withdrawal of voluntary retirement dated 22.07.2016 was made before
the expiry of the prescribed notice period and that the respondents
illegally rejected the same vide order dated 29.07.2016. It is further
contended that the order accepting his voluntary retirement with effect
from 31.07.2016 is liable to be quashed, as the withdrawal request was
submitted before the expiry of the applicable notice period. The
applicant has accordingly reiterated the grounds and reliefs sought in the
Original Application and prayed for granting the same.
6.​ I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7.​ Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had
initially applied for voluntary retirement on 01.03.2016 and that the said
application was received by the competent appointing authority,
Respondent No. 3, on 07.06.2016. It was contended that the applicant
submitted his request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement on
Page 3 of 7
ASHISH

KUMAR

22.07.2016, before the expiry of the prescribed notice period, but the
respondents illegally rejected the same vide order dated 29.07.2016 and
gave effect to his voluntary retirement with effect from 31.07.2016.
Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned action was contrary
to the applicable rules and Railway Board instructions and, therefore, the
impugned orders deserved to be set aside, with a consequential direction
to grant the applicant his admissible service and retiral benefits. To
substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed
his reliance on the judgment passed by this Bench in OA no. 63/2013
(Arvind Kishor Srivastava vs. Union of India and ors), decided on
02.02.2022.
8.​ Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
applicant's application for voluntary retirement dated 01.03.2016 was
duly considered and accepted by the competent authority in accordance
with the applicable Railway rules, and the order dated 05.07.2016 was
issued accordingly, making the voluntary retirement effective from
31.07.2016. It was contended that the applicant's request for withdrawal
dated 22.07.2016 was rejected vide order dated 29.07.2016 as the
prescribed notice period had already expired. Learned counsel further
submitted that the applicant had failed to furnish the requisite documents
and complete the necessary formalities for settlement of his retiral
benefits, due to which the payment could not be processed. Accordingly,
the respondents maintained that the voluntary retirement had been
accepted in accordance with the applicable rules and that the Original
Application was liable to be dismissed.
9.​ I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the
entire records.
10.​ Before discussing the submissions raised across the BAR, it will
be useful to reproduce the impugned order dated 05.07.2016 and
29.07.2016. The same are as under:-

Page 4 of 7
ASHISH

KUMAR

पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे
कार्यालय आदेश संख्या- 3784/16
​
04.07.2016
दिनांक:
उपाध्याय, उपाध्याय, कर्मचारी संख्या
श्री अच्युतानन्द पुत्र श्री सुरेश प्रसाद
(9300-34800 + ग्रेड पे 4200), महाप्रबंधक
प्रतिनियुक्ति आदेशानुसार
लखनऊ पर
(सतर्कता), गोरखपुर, पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे के मंडल कार्यरत थे। इन्होंने
अपना स्वैच्छिक आवेदन पत्र दिनांक 01.03.2016 द्वारा
सेवानिवृत्ति हेतु
अवधि 31.07.2016
दिया था। नोटिस दिनांक से समाप्त होने के उपरांत

31.07.2016
दिनांक से स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति स्वीकार की जाती है।
श्री उपाध्याय, कार्याधी की उनकी तिथि दिनांक
अच्युतानन्द नियुक्ति
27.07.1991 31.07.2016 तक 25 वर्ष 04 अर्हक
से दिन की सेवा
द्वारा सत्यापित है।
विसमुलेधि/सा.वि./गोरखपुर
इस पर वरिष्ठ मण्डल इंजीनियर (समन्वय), लखनऊ का आदेश प्राप्त है।

(सनत
जैन)
सहायक कार्मिक अधिकारी-I

मण्डल रेल प्रबंधक (कार्मिक), लखनऊ
कृते
प्रतिलिपि एवं आवश्यक कार्यवाही प्रेषित:
सूचनार्थ हेतु
1.
महाप्रबंधक (कार्मिक), पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे, गोरखपुर।
2. /
वित्त नियंत्रक गोरखपुर।

3. वरिष्ठ मंडल कार्मिक अधिकारी / लखनऊ।

4. कारखाना प्रबंधक / लखनऊ।
मुख्य
5.
संबंधित कर्मचारी श्री अच्युतानन्द उपाध्याय।
6. / लखनऊ।
मंडल लेखा अधिकारी

Order dated 29.07.2016

पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे

कार्यालय
​
/
मंडल रेल प्रबंधक का० ​
लखनऊ।
​
दिनांक: 29.07.2016

सेवा में,
​
श्री अच्युतानन्द उपाध्याय, ​
कार्यालय अधीक्षक,
​
द्वारा: महाप्रबंधक / सतर्कता कार्यालय,
​
रेलवे,
पूर्वोत्तर गोरखपुर।
विषय:
स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति वापस लेने के संबंध में।
Page 5 of 7
ASHISH

KUMAR

22.07.2016।
संदर्भ: आपका आवेदन दिनांक
विषयक आपके आवेदन के संबंध में अवगत कराना है कि आपने
उपर्युक्त
01.03.2016 को आवेदन किया
दिनांक स्वैच्छिक सेवानिवृत्ति हेतु प्रस्तुत
अवधि 30.06.2016
था, जिसकी तीन माह की नोटिस दिनांक को समाप्त
गई ए)
हो थी। रेलवे बोर्ड के पत्र संख्या ई(पी एंड I-2000/आरटी-9, दिनांक

05.11.2001 के आलोक में सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा आपका स्वैच्छिक

वापस लेने का स्वीकार नहीं किया गया है।
सेवानिवृत्ति अनुरोध
ए)
संलग्नक: रेलवे बोर्ड का पत्र संख्या ई(पी एंड I-2000/आरटी-9, दिनांक
05.11.2001।

एस.
(डी. के. चौहान)
​
वरिष्ठ मंडल कार्मिक अधिकारी
​
लखनऊ

प्रतिलिपि: ​
1. /
महाप्रबंधक कार्मिक, गोरखपुर, उनके पत्र संख्या
का/256/3/30/भाग-VIII, दिनांक 26.07.2016 के संदर्भ में।
​
2. महाप्रबंधक / सतर्कता,
गोरखपुर।

11.​ It is admitted that the applicant submitted his voluntary retirement
application on 01.03.2016, which was accepted vide order dated
05.07.2016 with effect from 31.07.2016. The applicant sought to
withdraw the application on 22.07.2016. The main issue is whether the
withdrawal request was made within the prescribed notice period. As per
the Railway Board instructions, the withdrawal request must be made
before the expiry of the notice period, irrespective of whether voluntary
retirement has already been accepted.
12.​ As far as competency of authority who has issued the impugned
orders are concerned, VRS application has been accepted by the
competent authority, i.e., General Manager and it was
issued/communicated by another authority. This fact itself does not make
the impugned orders illegal. It is also immaterial whether the VRS
application was moved before the competent authority or not. The
authority to whom the VRS application was moved has forwarded it to
the competent authority.
13.​ In the present case, the applicant himself submitted his application
for voluntary retirement on 01.03.2016. Accordingly, the prescribed
Page 6 of 7
ASHISH

KUMAR

notice period was required to be reckoned with reference to the date of
submission of the said application, subject to the applicable rules and
instructions. Even if the applicant's contention that the withdrawal
request was made before the effective date of retirement is accepted, the
same does not establish that the request was submitted within the
prescribed notice period. The request for withdrawal was made only on
22.07.2016, i.e., more than three months after the original application
dated 01.03.2016. The respondents, in their communication dated
29.07.2016, specifically stated that the prescribed notice period had
expired on 30.06.2016 and, on that basis, declined to accept the request
for withdrawal. Consequently, the applicant cannot claim an automatic
right to withdraw his notice merely because his request was made before
31.07.2016, the date from which his voluntary retirement was to take
effect. The applicant has, therefore, failed to establish that the impugned
orders suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Tribunal.
The reliance placed by learned counsel for the applicant on the decision
in Arvind Kishor Srivastava (supra) case will not be applicable in the
present case as in this case the applicant had withdrawn his VRS request
within a few days of submission of his request. Accordingly, the first
relief sought by the applicant is rejected. However, with regard to the
second relief, the respondents are directed to process and release the
admissible retiral benefits of the applicant, in accordance with the
applicable rules. In view of the aforesaid discussions, OA is partly
allowed. No order as to costs.
14.​ All associated MAs also stand disposed of.


​ ​ ​ ​ ​ (Justice Om Prakash VII)
​ ​ ​ Member(Judicial)
Ashish
Page 7 of 7
ASHISH

KUMAR