Continuous absence exceeding five years warrants deemed resignation under IREC rules, notwithstanding conditional voluntary retirement applications.

The applicant, a Tech-II in the Electrical Department, was declared surplus and redeployed to the Mechanical Department at Bhadrak via an order dated 10.12.2018

He challenged this transfer in OA 122/2019, where an interim order was passed on 24.07.2019 directing the respondents not to take coercive action regarding the transfer

Despite this, the applicant remained absent from duty starting 11.12.2018, citing private medical certificates

On 27.01.2023, the applicant submitted a representation requesting either a transfer modification or, alternatively, voluntary retirement (VRS)

The respondents issued a show-cause notice on 06.08.2024 for unauthorized absence exceeding five years

On 17/18.10.2024 and 26.11.2024, the respondents issued orders treating the applicant as "deemed to have resigned" from service effective immediately, citing his continuous absence since 2018

The applicant filed this OA to quash those orders and compel the acceptance of his VRS application.

1. Whether the applicant’s request dated 27.01.2023 constitutes a valid, unconditional application for Voluntary Retirement (VRS)

2. Whether the respondents’ action in treating the applicant as "deemed resigned" under Rule 510(2) of the IREC Vol. I due to five years of continuous absence is legally sustainable

Rule 510(2) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) Vol. I, as circulated under RBE No. 186/2019

This rule stipulates that no Railway servant shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years and that any servant absent for a continuous period exceeding five years (other than on foreign service), with or without leave, shall be deemed to have resigned from Railway service

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s letter dated 27.01.2023 was conditional, stating he would be "compelled to submit" his VRS only if his transfer was not modified

Such a conditional request cannot be construed as a valid notice for voluntary retirement

Regarding the unauthorized absence, the Tribunal found that the interim order in the previous litigation (OA 122/2019) protected the applicant only from coercive action regarding the transfer order but did not grant him a right to remain absent from duty for an indefinite period

Furthermore, the applicant failed to report to the Railway Hospital for medical evaluation as directed and could not justify his five-year absence through the COVID-19 pandemic, which was limited in duration

Since the applicant failed to prove his leave was sanctioned and the absence exceeded the five-year threshold, the statutory "deemed resignation" under Rule 510(2) was triggered automatically

The court upheld the orders dated 17/18.10.2024 and 26.11.2024, confirming that the applicant is deemed to have resigned from Railway service due to continuous absence exceeding five years

All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of