The Additional Director General, v. K. Narayana Reddy,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Writ Petition No.23705 of 2012 ORDER: (oral) (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait) Vide the present petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.04.2012 passed in O.A.No.1203 of 2011 whereby while allowing the O.A filed by the respondent, the Tribunal held that the respondent has completed minimum service required for voluntary retirement and his request for voluntary retirement should be accepted by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 and necessary steps be taken by them within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the respondent himself given declaration saying that his promotion as Group 'D' is only technical. Thus he was temporarily appointed on 20.04.1988 and on the same day he was relieved on deputation to Army Postal Service (APS). In the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, it was specifically mentioned that the respondent was discharged from APS on 30.09.2011, as such the authorities of APS do not have any administrative control on the respondent and he is subjected to the control of Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirupathi Division i.e, respondent No.5. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has misconstrued the words of "technical appointment" and "temporary appointment". Both terms are used in one context to express similar view

but this does not provide any right to respondent to count service from the date of deputation to APS. Obtaining declaration at a later date did not alter the conditions in any way. Agreeing to the conditions, the respondent submitted a declaration. If the respondent had any objection regarding the conditions set therein, he would have refused to sign and come back to Civil Wing. The respondent did not raise any objection and signed the declaration without any hesitation. It is beyond doubt to state that the conditions set therein were not agreeable and applicable to the respondent. 3) The respondent was appointed as Branch Post Master, S.V.Agriculture College BO a/w S.V.University SO w.e.f. 30.01.1983.

As there is no provision to depute GDS to APS, to fulfil the requisite condition of deputing Departmental Official to APS, the respondent was given technical appointment as Group 'D' for one day i.e, 20.04.1988 and he was deputed to APS subject to the conditions prescribed by the Department vide letter No.47-1/2003-SPB-I dated 23.07.2003 which reiterated the stipulations of Directorate letter No.47-4/96-SPB-I dated 28.05.1997. 4) The above said fact was stated by petitioners in its counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the respondent had joined as Group 'D' on 20.04.1988 and was relieved on the same day to report before Army Postal Service authorities. In-case the service has to be counted from 20.04.

1988, the respondent would be completing 20 years of service by 2008 but the contention of the petitioners is that the respondent was technically appointed as Group 'D' to enable his deputation to Army Postal Service.

the existence of declaration dated 30.08.1991. The lower Tribunal observed in its order that it is not clear as to why the declaration was taken on 30.08.1991 when the respondent has actually joined Army Postal Service on 22.04.1988.

5) It is pertinent to note that during the arguments before the lower Tribunal, the counsel for respondent brought to its notice regarding proceedings of the office of the Sub Divisional Inspector (Postal) Tirupathi West Sub Division dated 20.04.1988, wherein it is mentioned that the respondent selected for deputation to Army Postal Service as Group 'D' official, was appointed as Group 'D' official in S.V. University Sub Office purely on temporary basis on 20.04.1988 and relieved on the same day afternoon for deputation to Army Postal Services as directed in S.P Tirupati memo dated 14.04.1988. This proceeding establish that the respondent was temporarily appointed as Group 'D' and he was not technically appointed as Group 'D' to enable him to proceed on deputation to Army Postal Service as mentioned in the declaration dated 30.08.

1991 of the respondent. 6) Moreover there cannot be anything like technical appointment as mentioned in the declaration dated 30.08.1991 and the declaration was obviously taken later on to meet some contingency that arose at that time. However, the fact remains that the respondent was temporarily appointed on 20.04.1988 and on the same day he was relieved on deputation to Army Postal Service. The question as to whether the respondent, who joined on 20.04.

same need not be gone into as rightly observed by the lower Tribunal. However, the fact remains that the date of entry into Group 'D' service has to be taken as 20.04.1988. Taking into consideration the said date, we have no hesitation to say that the respondent has completed 20 years of service eligible for voluntary retirement.

7) Finding no illegality or perversity in the order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the lower Tribunal in O.A.No.1203 of 2011, we hereby confirm the same.

8) In the result, we find no merits in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

________________________ SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J ________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Dt: 11.07.2017 scs