P M LAKSHMIDEVI vs CENTRAL SILK BOARD on 3 November 2026

O R D E R

Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ……Member(A) Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: “(i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other order quashing the Impugned Office Orders No. CSB/NSSO/3/(2061)/02-ES/4562 Dated 09.03.2026 passed by the 3rd Respondent which has been produced as ANNEXURE-A2, as the said order is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, and irrational and violate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the principles of rules of natural justice.

(ii) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the respondents to consider the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement as sought vide her representations dated 05.02.2026 under FR 56

(k) (1).

(iii) Pass any such other orders or issue such other directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows: The Applicant, joined the Central Silk Board in 1991 and after serving for 34 years, she applied for VRS on 05.02.2026 which was rejected despite the fact that it was in accordance with the extant rules. Hence, she has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal for relief.

3. Applicant

(i) The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant joined the Central Silk Board service on appointment to the post of Field Assistant on 18th November, 1991. Subsequently she was promoted as Technical Assistant and is presently working as Senior Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Level- 7 of Pay Matrix with an unblemished record. The applicant has served the Central Silk Board for 34 years continuously as on date.

(ii) The applicant has got four dependents and is having the following domestic issues: The applicant's Mother-in-law is aged about 80 years, and mother aged about 90 years, and they are suffering from old age issues. Both are unable to manage things on their own and require continuous attention for their daily chores. Applicant’s mother has also undergone knee operation. Applicant’s husband is also suffering from age related issues and being a diabetic patient he is completely dependent on applicant. Furthermore, applicant has got an unmarried daughter aged about 26 years. As a responsible woman, it is her responsibility and bounden duty to look after her dependents and also to arrange the marriage of her grown up daughter to complete her family obligations. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Given the above family circumstances, where the applicant's presence in the family is very much essential, she decided to take Voluntary Retirement from the service. Accordingly, the applicant submitted her application dated 05.02.2026 to the Appointing Authority seeking Voluntary Retirement from Service, which was rejected through the impugned order No. CSB/NSSO/3/(2061)/02-ES/4562 dated 09.03.2026 on grounds of shortage of staff.

(iii) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a Group-B employee, aged about 53 years and has completed 34 years of service. She is neither under suspension nоr disciplinary proceedings are pending/contemplated against the applicant, to withhold the permission to retire from service. Therefore, the action of the Respondent Board to withhold the permission to the applicant for voluntary retirement is arbitrary, illegal and against the provisions of FR 56 (k) (1) and Rule 48 (1) (a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. As per Rule 48 (1) (a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, all Government servants covered by the said rules with minimum 30 years of service may retire from service voluntarily with pensionary benefits and the appropriate authority may withhold the permission to retire, only when a government service is under suspension.

(iv) He further avers that as per FR 56 (k) (1): Any Government servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years, if he is in Group A or Group B service or post, (and had entered Government service KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

before attaining the age of thirty-five years), and in all other cases after he has attained the age of fifty-five years. Provided that- “……………

(iv) it shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government servant under suspension who seeks to retire under this Clause, if- (a) the Government servant is under suspension; or (b) a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending or

(c) if judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending.”

(v) The learned counsel for the applicant points out that the DoPT, vide O.M. No.25013/3/2010-Estt (A) dated 27th February, 2014 regarding Voluntary Retirement under FR.56 (k), etc and amendment of Rules have clarified as under: “The provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(k), 56(m) and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 relating to acceptance of request of voluntary retirement have been revisited as per the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench judgment dated 4th August, 2010 in 0.A.No.1600/2009 filed by Shri Gopal Singh Purohit Vs UOI & Others to bring them at par with each other. The matter has 'been examined in consultation with Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare and the Ministry of Law. FR 56(k) and 56 (m) have been amended vide Extra Ordinary Gazette Notification No.GSR.27(E) dated 17th January, 2014. It shall be open to the appropriate authority to withhold permission to a Government servant who seeks to retire under FR 56(k) or 56

(m) in the following circumstances:

(i) If the Government servant is under suspension; or

(ii) If a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; or

(iii) If judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending.”

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(vi) The learned counsel for the applicant also places reliance upon a recent judgment dated 06.06.2025, by this Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Smt. B. Lakshmi Kanthamma vs. Central Silk Board, vide OA No.637/2024, in which it is decided as under: "It has been held that the only reason that could be available to the employer to reject the notice for voluntary retirement under Rule 56 (k) of FR is that the applicant should have been under suspension. It is further observed that the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the employee clearly laid down that unless the applicant is under suspension, request for voluntary retirement, under Rule 56(k) cannot be rejected. In the light of the aforesaid judgments, it is well settled that the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k)(1) of FR could be withheld only in the circumstances envisaged in FR 56 (k)(1)(c) and not otherwise".

(vii) The learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that this is a covered matter and has invited my attention to the judgements passed in similar cases by this very Bench of CAT in the following OAs:

(i) OA No. 403/2024 dated 23.1.2025

(ii) OA No. 200/2024 dated 03.10.2024

(iii) OA No. 514/2025 dated 24.03.2026

(iv) OA No. 20/2026 dated 19.08.2026

(v) OA No. 50/2026 dated 19.08.2026

(vi) OA No. 673/2024 dated 06.06.2025

(vii) OA No. 63/2026 dated 20.08.2026

(viii) OA No. 637/2024 dated 06.06.2025 KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(ix) OA No. 672/2024 dated 06.06.2025

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant requests for relief stated supra.

4. Reply The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed the reply.

(i) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Central Silk Board (CSB) is a statutory body created by an Act of Parliament namely the Central Silk Board Act, 1948. The Central Silk Board is functioning under the administrative control of Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India. The predominant function of the Board is Research and Development in the field of Sericulture. The staff of the CSB includes scientific, administrative, technical and other operational and supporting staff.

(ii) The learned counsel for the respondents points out that Central Silk Board is facing acute shortage of Officers/officials due to retirement on superannuation. Hence, to combat the acute shortage of field administrative staff resulting from organizational downsizing, the Central Silk Board issued a clear structural circular. The circular mandates that Voluntary Retirement requests can only be examined on bona fide self-medical grounds with valid institutional medical board verification.

(iii) The learned counsel for the respondents points out that that as per DOPT O.M. No. 28034/25/67-Estt(A) dated 11th February 1988 vide para 2(i) (Annexure- R3), a resignation of a Government servant from service should be accepted, except in the circumstances "where the Government servant concerned KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

is engaged on work of importance and it would take time to make alternative arrangements for filling the post, the resignation should not be accepted straightaway but only when alternative arrangements for filling the post have been made".

(iv) The learned counsel for respondents further submits that as per Office Order dated 20.08.2024, the applicant is the exclusive officer managing 9 critical focal points of the Silkworm Seed Production Centre and she looks after the Dfls (Disease Free Layings) Disposal and remittance and Accounts Section coordination. Her responsibilities include: Incubation of Dfls F1 & P1 Dfls. Consignment and Release of F1 Dfls. Invoice and Cash Receipt Billing. Day-to-Day Stock Dfls Registers. Dfls Indent and Supply Registration. Maintenance of the Demand, Collection, and Balance (DCB) Register and P1 Dfls Release Registers.

Justifying the rejection of VRS of the applicant by the respondents, the learned counsel for the respondents argues that these operations cannot be sustained without experienced Senior Technical Assistant to oversee incubation and release. He submits that as per the official staff deployment state of SSPC Chintamani, there are only two technical personnel. Since, the Applicant has accumulated 34 years of experience with the respondent Board and has highly specialized, practical expertise in critical sericulture processes-specifically in the delicate phases of silkworm seed incubation, her exit at this juncture will bring KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

all physical seed distribution, cash remittance workflows, and farmer-level seed cocoon procurement monitoring to an immediate standstill. Hence, in the larger interest of the organization, the request for VRS submitted by the Applicant has not been accepted.

5. Conclusion:

(1) I have heard at length the arguments of both the counsels and have gone through all the documents and material brought on record and also the judgements cited above.

(2) It is undisputed that the applicant had submitted application for VRS on 05.02.2026, which was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 09.03.2026.

(3) It is also not disputed that the applicant is a Group B employee, has continuously served the Central Silk Board for 34 years and is over 50 years of age and thereby fulfils all the requirements regarding submission and acceptance of her voluntary retirement application as per the extant provisions/rules.

(4) In the light of the averments of learned counsel for the applicant, that this Bench of CAT has already passed several similar OAs of Central Silk Board, it would be useful to visit the relevant extracts of the Judgement of Bangalore Bench of CAT in OA No. 403 of 2024 dated 23.01.2025 between N. Bharathi Kaliammal and The Joint Secretary (Silk), Ministry of Textiles & Ors. which are as follows: “...........................

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. FR 56(k)(1) reads thus: KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

“56(k)(1) Any government servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years, if he is in Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ service or post, (and had entered Government service before attaining the age of thirty five years), and in all other cases after he has attained the age of fifty five years: Provided that __

(a) .......

(b) nothing in the clause shall also apply to a Government servant including scientist or technical expert who (i) is on assignment under the Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid Programmes, (ii)is posted abroad in a foreign-based office of a Ministry/Department and (iii) goes on a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year: and

(c) It shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government servant who seeks to retire under this clause, if __

(i) the Government servant is under suspension ; or

(ii) a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; or

(iii) if judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending. Explanation:__ For the purpose of this clause, judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be pending, if a complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, has been made or filed in a criminal proceedings. (I-A)(a) A Government servant referred to in sub-clause (1) may make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reasons therefor; (b) On receipt of a request under sub-clause (1-A)(a), the Appointing Authority may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the Appointing Authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government servant shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(2) ............................................................................” The conditions relevant for claiming VRS under Clause 56(k)(1) are :

i. Giving notice of not less than three months about the intendment of VRS in writing to the Appropriate Authority.

ii. Employee has attained the age of fifty years, if he is in Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ service or post and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years.

iii. Employee has attained the age of 55 years in all other cases.

8. In terms of FR 56(k)(1)(c), appropriate authority can withhold permission to a Government servant, who seeks to retire from service in the following circumstances.

i. Government servant is under suspension. ii.Charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending.

iii. judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending. Admittedly, none of the clauses referred to above, are attracted in the present case.

9. In Achal Singh supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the right of an employee for voluntary retirement under Rule 56 of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, held that notice of voluntary retirement does not come into effect automatically under Rule 56 after expiry of three months period, the appointing authority has to accept the notice for voluntary retirement or it can be refused on permissible grounds. The concept of public interest has been considered as per the explanation appended to Rule 56 of the State of Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. The relevant paras reads thus:

“Explanation. (1) The decision of the appointing authority under clause (c) to require the Government servant to retire as specified therein shall be taken if it appears to the said authority to be in public interest, but nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any recital, in the order, of such decision having been taken in the public interest.

(2) In order to be satisfied whether it will be in the public interest to require a Government servant to retire under clause.

(c) the appointing authority may take into consideration any material relating to the Government servant and nothing herein KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

contained shall be construed to exclude from consideration-- .......................................................

However, no such identical phraseology with respect to public interest is found in FR 56(k)(1). Hence, this judgment has no relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. In Union of India and others vs. Ved Prakash Sharma [W.P.(Civil) No.8102/2010 (DD:15.02.2011)], the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the employee retired under Rule 56 (k)(1) of Fundamental Rules and thereafter his absence was not illegal and consequently the employee shall also be entitled for retirement benefits as per Rules. The Hon’ble High Court has observed that the employee had sought for voluntary retirement under Rule 56 (k)(1), the Tribunal and the petitioners have committed grave error in treating the case of the respondent under Rule 48 of CCS (Pensions) Rules, 1972. It has been further observed that the employee was not under suspension when he gave a notice for retirement under FR 56(k)(1) nor he was under suspension till expiry of three months period, the date from which his retirement came into effect on 15.09.2009 and no charge sheet for disciplinary proceedings was initiated at that time, as the charge sheet for disciplinary proceedings was issued by Memorandum dated 17.05.2019.

11. In R.N.Thakar vs. Union of India, CAT, Ahmedabad Bench (OA No. DD:10.09.1999), it has been held that the only reason that could be available to the employer to reject the notice for voluntary retirement under Rule 56 (k) of FR is that the applicant should have been under suspension. It is further observed that the judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the employee clearly laid down that unless the applicant is under suspension, request for voluntary retirement, under Rule 56(k) cannot be rejected. ..............................

15. This Tribunal in the case of R.Nanda Kumar supra, considering the provisions of FR 56(k)(1) and FR 56(k)(1)(c) in the light of the judgments referred to, by the learned Counsel for the parties therein, has held that the request of an employee for voluntary retirement under Rule 56 (k)(1) of FR could be withheld only in the circumstances envisaged under FR 56 (k(1)(c) and not otherwise. The object and purpose of three months time provided in FR 56(k)(1) while seeking for voluntary retirement is to ensure that the employer be provided with reasonable time for making the alternative KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

arrangement. But no such efforts are made by the respondents to find out the possibilities of alternative arrangement in response to the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement vide letter dated 19.06.2024. On the other hand, rejection order has been issued immediately on 27.06.2024.

16. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2 at Annexure A2 is quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement submitted vide representation dated 19.06.2024 (Annexure A1) in the light of the observations made herein above and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in an expedite manner, in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. ………………” Unquote

Likewise, this very Bench of CAT, in OA No. 514 of 2025 dated 24.03.2026 between M. Manohara and The Joint Secretary (Silk), Ministry of Textiles & Ors. it is held as: “...............................

9. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a Group ‘B’ officer. The applicant has put in more than 36 years of service having entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years. It is also not in dispute that the applicant has fulfilled the criteria prescribed in FR 56 (k) (l)…….. ………………..

13. In Bharathi Kaliammal, supra, this Tribunal examined the applicability of the Circular dated 19.04.2024 issued by the Central Office, Bengaluru, observed that the said Circular relates to the request of the employees for acceptance of voluntary retirement/issue of vigilance clearance on self-medical grounds. The applicant therein, has not sought for voluntary retirement on any medical grounds. Hence, the said Circular has no relevancy to decide the request of an employee for voluntary retirement. The said Circular dated 19.04.2024 is extracted hereunder for ready reference: KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

"Sub: Request for acceptance of Voluntary Retirement/ Issue of Vigilance Clearance of employees on Medical grounds - regarding. &&&&&&&&

I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to inform that the Competent Authority has ordered that due to shortage of staff in Central Silk Board, the request of the employees on self medical grounds for acceptance of Voluntary Retirement/issue of Vigilance Clearance only would be examined.

In this connection, it is to inform that while forwarding the request of staff for Voluntary Retirement on medical grounds, kindly ensure that the staff submitted the details of their Medical/Health status and medical certificate in the prescribed format as per rules to examine their request.

This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."

………………….

15. In Smt. V.T. Darly, supra, this Tribunal considering the identical issue observed thus: “13. Moreover, the stance of the respondents that self-medical ground alone would be considered for examining the request of an employee for voluntary retirement runs contrary to FR 56 (k)(l)(c) and the legal principles settled by the judicial forums. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 at Annexure A4 issued by Respondent No. 2 is not sustainable, accordingly stands quashed. Respondent No. 2is directed to reconsider the representation dated 03.10.2024 (Annexure A3) submitted by the applicant in the light of the observations made herein above and pass an appropriate order, in an expedite manner, in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.”

16. In the light of the aforesaid orders, the stance of the respondents that self-medical ground alone would be considered for examining the request of an employee for voluntary retirement runs contrary to FR 56 (k)(l)(c) and the legal principles settled by the judicial forums.

17. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2 at Annexure A5 is quashed and set KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

aside. The Respondent No. 2 is directed to reconsider the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement submitted vide application dated 28.08.2025 (Annexure A4) in the light of the observations made hereinabove and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in an expedite manner, in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

18. OA stands disposed of in terms of above.” Unquote Similarly, this very Bench of CAT, in its Judgement in OA No. 50/2026 dated 19.08.2026 between D.S. Rohini and The Joint Secretary (Silk), Ministry of Textiles & Ors. stated as follows: “………….

5. Conclusion ………..

(4) It would be useful to revisit the relevant extracts of the two Judgements of this very Bench of CAT which have been cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. They are produced as below:

(1) Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench Order in OA No. 637 of 2024, dated 06.06.2025, between B. Lakshmi Kanthamma and The Joint Secretary (Silk), Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India & Ors.: “…………….

2. The facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that she entered service of the Central Silk Board with effect from 29.07.1989 as a Junior Stenographer. Presently the applicant is working as Assistant Director (A&A) Level-10. She has put in nearly 35 years of service as on date with unblemished records. The applicant submitted an application dated 30.07.2024 to the Respondent Board seeking voluntary retirement from service with effect from 31.10.2024 with a notice period of three months from 30.07.2024, due to personal reasons and social obligations. The respondent Board has rejected the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement vide letter dated 30.09.2024 on the ground of shortage of staff and also stated therein that the request of the employees for acceptance of voluntary retirement would be KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

examined only on self-medical grounds. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA. 3………. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the orders passed by this Tribunal in the case of R.Nanda Kumar vs. Union of India, Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi and another in OA No.200/2024 (DD:03.10.2024) and N.Bharathi Kaliammal vs. The Joint Secretary (Silk), Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi and another in OA No.403/2024 (DD:23.01.2025). 4…………. Keeping in view the retirement of Assistant Director (Stats) in Stores Section during September, 2023 she was posted to Central Office, Bangalore to meet the requirement of Assistant Director (A&A) in Stores Section of Central Office in the same campus and as such she has reported for duty on 10.08.2023. Central Silk Board is facing acute shortage of Administrative officers/officials due to shrinking of organisation. Hence to meet the requirement of officer in the cadre of Assistant Director (A&A) in Central Office, the competent authority has not agreed to accept her request for voluntary retirement. Considering these aspects, the organisation took a decision and a circular during April, 2024 was issued stating that request for VRS on self medical grounds only would be examined. Accordingly supporting the impugned order, learned Counsel seeks for dismissal of the OA.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Achal Singh reported in (2018) 10 SCALE 89. …………….

7. In the facts and circumstances, the sole point that arises for consideration is, whether the applicant is entitled for VRS as claimed and the impugned order at Annexures A2 issued by Respondent No.2 is justifiable?

…………………………….

11. At this juncture, it is apt to refer to the order of this Tribunal in R.Nanda Kumar supra, this Tribunal extensively analysing the Rule position in the light of the legal principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Courts, has held that the request of an employee for voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k)(1) of Fundamental Rules could be withheld only in the circumstances envisaged in FR (k)(1)(c) and not otherwise. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

………………..

14. Moreover, the stance of the respondents that self-medical ground alone would be considered for examining the request of an employee for voluntary retirement runs contrary to FR 56(k)(1)(c) and the legal principles settled by the judicial forums. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 at Annexure A2 issued by Respondent No.2 is not sustainable, accordingly stands quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the representation dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure A1) submitted by the applicant in the light of the observations made herein above and pass an appropriate order, in an expedite manner, in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. ………………”

……………………………….

(5) As seen from above, the facts and circumstances of this case are very similar to those which have already been dealt with, by this very Bench of CAT in its Judgements in OA No. 637 of 2024 and 514 of 2025, cited above.

(6) It is seen that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Achal Singh in Civil Appeal No. 8421 of 2018 has also been adequately addressed by this Hon’ble Bench of CAT in the above two judgements.

(7) It is a well settled principle that if a case is exactly identical in terms of facts & circumstances and law to a case earlier decided upon, the Judgement should also be similar to that of the coordinate Bench. In this regard, it would be beneficial to visit the relevant portions of the following Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:

(i) Judgement of Supreme Court in S.I. Rooplal and Anr Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary reported in (2000) 1 SCC 644 vide Civil Appeal No. 5363-64 of 1997 dated 14.12.1999: “…………………………….. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

11. Before us in these matters, Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. S.K. Dholakia, learned senior counsel appearing for the parties contended that the latter Bench of the tribunal committed a judicial impropriety in taking a contra view from the earlier judgment without Following the rule of precedent………

12. At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law from the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement. This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, [1968] 1 SCR 455 while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment of a larger Bench of S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary... on 14 December, 1999 the same court observed thus: "The judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court was binding upon Raju, J. If the learned Judge was of the view that the decision of Bhagwati, J., in Pinjare Karimbhai's case and of Macleod, C.J., in Haridas 's case did not lay down the correct Law or rule of practice, it was open to him to recommend to the Chief Justice that the question be considered by a larger Bench. Judicial decorum, propriety and discipline required that he should not KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

ignore it Our system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore decisions by Courts of coordinate authority or of superior authority. Gajendragadkar, C.J. observed in Lala Shri Bhagwan and Anr, v. Shri Ram Chand and Anr. "It is hardly necessary to emphasis that considerations of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earlier decisions of the High Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be re- considered, lie should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single Judge, but should refer the matter to a Division Bench, or, in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the Chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety."

13. We are indeed sorry to note the attitude of the tribunal in this case which, after noticing the earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench and after noticing the judgment of this Court, has still thought it fit to proceed to take a view totally contrary to the view taken in the earlier judgment thereby creating a judicial uncertainty in regard to the declaration of law involved in this case. Because of this approach of the latter Bench of the tribunal in this case, a lot of valuable time of the Court is wasted and parties to this case have been put to considerable hardship. ……………………..”

(ii) Judgement of Supreme Court in Sant Lal Gupta & Ors vs Modern Coop. G.H. Society Ltd. & Ors reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336 vide Civil Appeal No. 9439 of 2003 dated 18.10.2010: “………….

17. A coordinate bench cannot comment upon the discretion exercised or judgment rendered by another coordinate bench of the same court. The rule of precedent is binding for the reason that there is a desire to secure uniformity and certainty in law. Thus, in judicial administration precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of the administration of justice under our system. Therefore, it has always been insisted that the decision of a coordinate bench must be followed. (Vide: Tribhovandas Purshottamdas Thakkar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel & Ors., AIR 1968 KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

SC 372; Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India & Ors., (1992) 4 SCC 97; and State of Tripura v. Tripura Bar Association & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 637).

18. In Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Harish Kumar Purohit & Ors., (2003) 5 SCC 480, this Court held that a bench must follow the decision of a coordinate bench and take the same view as has been taken earlier. The earlier decision of the coordinate bench is binding upon any latter coordinate bench deciding the same or similar issues. If the latter bench wants to take a different view than that taken by the earlier bench, the proper course is for it to refer the matter to a larger bench. ………………”

The Judgements of the Supreme Court cited supra, clearly state that if a Court has passed a Judgement in a case with a given set of facts & circumstances and law, then the same has to be honoured subsequently by the Coordinate Benches in all other similar cases. It is seen that the facts & circumstances in this case are exactly similar to the ones already decided upon in OA No. 637 of 2024 and 514 of 2025, dated 06.06.2025 and 24.03.2026 respectively by this Bench. I find no reason or grounds to differ from the same. ………………….” Unquote

In view of the above, it is seen that the facts & circumstances in this case are exactly similar to the ones already decided upon in OA No. 403/2024 dated 23.01.2025, OA No. 514/2025 dated 24.03.2026 and OA No. 50 of 2026 dated 19.08.2026, by this Bench. I find no reason or grounds to differ from the same.

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(6) Hence, the OA is allowed. It is hereby ordered:

(a) The Impugned Office Orders No. CSB/NSSO/3/(2061)/02-ES/4562 dated 09.03.2026 passed by Respondent No. 3 at Annexure A-2 is quashed and set aside.

(b) The Respondents are directed to reconsider the request of the applicant for voluntary retirement submitted vide application dated 05.02.2026 in the light of the observations made hereinabove and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order in an expeditious manner; in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(c) No costs.

Sd/- (SANTOSH MEHRA)

MEMBER (A)

kr

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI