Mrs. Rajinder Kaur Rathod v. The Union Of India And ANR.

905.caw 2313.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2313 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6204 OF 2003 Mrs. Rajinder Kaur Rathaur .. Applicant Vs.

The Union of India and anr.

.. Respondents Mr. A. S. Rao, for Applicant.

Digitally signed by URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Date:

2022.03.15 16:02:45 +0530 URMILA PRAMOD INGALE Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge a/w Mrs. Neeta Masurkar, for Respondents.

CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE:

MARCH 11, 2022 P.C.:

This is an application for recall of the order dated May 6, 2004 dismissing the writ petition of the applicant (Writ Petition No. 6204 of 2003) for non-prosecution. The writ petition was directed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter "Tribunal", for short) dated September 15, 2001 dismissing the applicant's original application (O.A. No. 1313 of 1995) on merits. The subject matter of the original application was denial of the revised scale of pay to the applicant.

It has been brought to our notice by Mr. Garge, learned advocate for the respondents that no useful purpose would be served in recalling the order dated May 6, 2004 and restoring the writ petition to its original file and number, since in the Urmila Inglae, PS

905.caw 2313.19 interregnum, the applicant applied for voluntary retirement in 2005 without reserving her rights and contentions to pursue this proceeding and such application for voluntary retirement having been granted, the applicant retired from service of the respondent no.2.

We enquired of Mr. Rao, learned advocate for the applicant, as to whether the applicant had applied for voluntary retirement without prejudice to her rights and contentions to pursue the writ petition, which by that time stood dismissed. Mr. Rao could not answer in the affirmative. In our opinion, that is the end of the matter. Having applied for retirement voluntarily and without reserving her rights to raise all points in the writ petition, the applicant is deemed to have waived her rights in respect of the claim that was raised before the Tribunal.

For the reasons aforesaid, we find no reason to recall the order dated May 6, 2004. Hence, the application for recall stands dismissed. No costs.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) Urmila Inglae, PS