Minor Penalties Don’t Bar Voluntary Retirement Under Master Circular 35 | HC
- Blog|News|Labour & Industrial Laws|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 20 December, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Union of India vs. Dharmendra Kumar Sahu - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 281 (HC-Allahabad)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Attau Rahman Masoodi & Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ.
-
Ajit Kumar Dwivedi for the Petitioner.
-
Amit Verma, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the Respondent, a railway servant, applied for voluntary retirement citing health issues. No order was passed on his application, leading him to file an original application seeking a direction to decide his voluntary retirement request. In the original application, he pleaded completion of more than 22 years of service.
Petitioners-employer admitted before the Tribunal that the respondent had completed more than 22 years of service, and stated that two minor punishments had been imposed on 19.02.2020. The Tribunal allowed the original application and directed the petitioners to grant the respondent’s request for voluntary retirement upon the expiry of the statutory period of 90 days and to pay him all his retirement dues.
Petitioners filed an instant writ challenging the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal.
It was noted that the Master Circular No. 35 issued by the Railway Board does not provide that the request for voluntary retirement of a person who has been awarded a minor punishment cannot be accepted.
Further, petitioners did not controvert the specific plea of the railway servant that he had completed more than 22 years of service; there was no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Tribunal by issuing a direction to petitioners to allow the railway servant’s request for voluntary retirement.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the respondent had already been punished for his unauthorised absence from duty and that punishment did not provide that periods during which the respondent remained absent shall not be counted in his service or that he shall not be paid salary for those periods. Thus, there was no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal allowing the original application filed by the respondent.
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
