DR. DILIP KUMAR KALA S/O SHRI DOULATMAL KALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
LAWS(RAJ)-2019-3-3
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on March 07,2019

Dr. Dilip Kumar Kala S/O Shri Doulatmal Kala Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary To Government Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ALOK SHARMA, J - (1.) Under challenge as arbitrary and illegal, is the order dated 15- 11-2018 whereby the petitioner's application under Rule 50(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1996') for voluntarily retirement effective 12-12-2018 has been rejected.
(2.) The petitioner, Principal Specialist Tuberculosis, Directorate of Medical & Health, Swasthya Bhawan Jaipur through application dated 10/13-9-2018 apparently for the reason that he required time for self in the evening of his life sought voluntary retirement effective 12-12-2018 on the ground that he had attained the age of 60 years and 6 months, had served for about 33 years. That application was processed by the department but vide order dated 15-11-2018 rejected on the administrative grounds of the pressing need for providing medical facilities to the public at large. The inarticulated reason was that on the petitioner's retirement as sought voluntarily the public interest would be jeopardized.
(3.) Mr. Praveen Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for voluntary retirement of a government servant under Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 cannot be refused in the absence of preconditions set out by the Government's guiding note under Rule 50(2) of the Rules of 1996. The said administrative guidance note provides that voluntary retirement sought can be refused only if the concerned government servant is under (I) suspension or (ii) disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against him for the imposition of a major penalty or (iii) that the disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of penalty of removal or dismissal from service. None of the conditions aforesaid for denial of voluntary retirement on application appropriately made were even remotely made out in the petitioner's case. Nor in fact the order of refusal so states. Thus under Rule 50(2) of the Rules of 1996 the petitioner was entitled to have his application accepted and be treated as voluntarily retired effective 12-12-2018. Counsel to support his contention placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of Dr.Kalpana Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.4526/2014 decided on 16-12- 2014. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.