Judgment:
o r d e r (oral)
The present application has been filed by the applicant challenging the acts and inaction on the part of respondents in transferring the applicant without considering his poor health while his application is still pending with the respondents on the medical grounds.
2. The applicant has suffered a severe spinal injury in December, 2008 and due to this injury, he proceeded on leave. He finally resumed his duties on 31.3.2009. As the condition of the applicant did not improve, he was medically advised to take rest. He applied for voluntary retirement under the prescribed rules and served a notice dated 18.03.2009 for voluntary retirement requesting the competent authority to relieve him from duties w.e.f. 30.4.2009. On 16.4.2009, the applicant received a letter from the competent authority wherein the competent authority rejected his request for relieving him after one months notice and he was advised to submit a three months notice, as per normal rules. Accordingly on 23.4.2009, the applicant again submitted a three months notice for voluntary retirement in continuation of previous notice dated 18.03.2009 and requested that he be relieved from 01.08.2009. While the applicants requests for voluntary retirement was still pending the respondents passed the impugned order posting him to Patna. On 29.4.2009, the applicant was shocked to receive the impugned order. The applicant made a number of representations (Annexures G to K) requesting that he may not be relieved as he has yet to receive the office communication accepting voluntary retirement notice and he may be voluntary retired from 01.07.2009 notwithstanding he was relieved on 29.05. 2009. There is a copy of Office notice at page 40 of paper book wherein it has been recorded that he may be first relieved from FHQ to join at place of posting. His notice may be transferred to concerned office.
3. I do not find any warrant for passing the impugned order While the applicants requests for voluntary retirement is still pending. The respondents should have taken action on the request of voluntary retirement of the applicant which has been submitted long before his transfer. Even the three months notice time has yet also expired. I consider it expedient to dispose of this application at admission stage itself by quashing impugned orders with a direction to the respondents to take an appropriate decision on the request of voluntary retirement and in case the request acceded to, there would be no further occasion to post him any where. Otherwise, the respondents shall be at liberty to take any action as they deem fit in case the applicants requests for voluntary retirement is not given effect to for any valid reasons. No order as to costs.