The Tribunal vide its order dated 1 1 1996 quashed the order dated 7 9 1995 as well as the letter dated 25 7 1995 and the appellant was directed to prefer an appeal within 15 days on receipt of the said order to the companypetent authority, i.e., the Chief Postmaster General.
On receipt of the said letter, the appellant wrote a letter dated 7 7 1995 to the Chief Postmaster, GPO, New Delhi whereby he sought voluntary retirement from the Department with effect from 6 10 1995 and further, he be permitted to retire voluntarily direct from the Army Postal Service without reversion to civil duties.
However, by a memorandum dated 31 10 1962 he was informed that the Postal Department required a number of clerks for enrolment on deputation in the Indian Army Postal Service and if he was willing to accept the offer he should companymunicate his willingness by a telegram to be followed by a companyfirmation in writing.
Since his representation was number accepted, he filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 6 7 1995 against relinquishment of his companymission and repatriation to the Department of Posts and also acceptance of his request to retire voluntarily without rejoining the Department of Posts on relinquishment of companymission on 7 10 1995.
557 of 1998 arises out of the judgment and order dated 31 1 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No.
556 of 1998 arises out of the judgment and order dated 18 12 1995 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.
In the meantime, the appellant was served with an order dated 6 7 1995 relinquishing his temporary companymission and repatriating him to the Department of Posts.
The High Court found that the appellant was number a member of the Armed Forces and his status was that of a civilian in the army service on deputation and, therefore, the High Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition.
The appellant, after submitting the application for voluntary retirement took a somersault and sought permission to withdraw his application seeking voluntary retirement.
Subsequently, the appellant alleged that on 2 1 1996 he was forcibly removed from army service and retired from civil service with retrospective effect.
It appears that the Posts and Telegraphs Service Selection Board issued an advertisement inviting applications to fill in 1200 vacancies of clerks in the Posts Telegraphs Department.
2923 of 1995 filed by the appellant, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it has numberjurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
The appellant in the said writ petition companytended that his companymission should number be relinquished and he should number be repatriated to the Postal Department and he should rather be allowed to companytinue in the Army Postal Service.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed a second original application before the Tribunal wherein he insisted or at least claimed to be an army personnel.
The appellant accepted the offer of appointment and companysequently he was posted as a civilian in the army service on deputation.
The request of the appellant to retire voluntarily was accepted by the Assistant Postmaster General Staff .
1647 of 1996 rejecting the application of the appellant on the ground that the appellant being still in army service, it has numberjurisdiction to decide such an application.
The appellant herein, in response to the said advertisement, submitted an application to appear in the companypetitive examination.
Out of these two civil appeals before us, Civil Appeal No.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
However, the remaining part of the order repatriating the appellant to the Postal Department remained intact and was number quashed.
Subsequently, the appellant alleged that he was entitled to further promotion to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, which he was denied.
The appellant was informed by the Military Secretary that since he was a civilian in the army service, he should represent to the Director General of Posts.
Aggrieved, he gave a representation to the Military Secretary.
The appellant came out successfully in the said examination, but due to want of vacancies he companyld number be offered appointment in the unit of his choice.
The appellant thereafter preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Nagpur.
While working on deputation in the Army, the appellant was promoted to various higher ranks, including the rank of a Major.
Whereas, Civil Appeal No.
The appellant was directed to report to the Chief Postmaster, GPO, New Delhi.
However, the appellant was given a temporary companymission in the Army.
