Kalmonje Jagannath Shetty, J. - (1.) BY this petition a class II employee of Railway seeks direction to opposite parties to determine his pension and other benefits consequent to his voluntary retirement. Since the relief is dependant on the claim of petitioner that he voluntary retired on 1st Sept. 1985 after expiry of the date mentioned in the notice dated 11th May, 1985 served on opposite parties on 13th May, 1985 it is appropriate to deal with it, at the outset, as it is seriously contested. It is not disputed that voluntary retirement of such an employee is governed by circulars issued by opposite parties in 1977 and 1981, copies of which have been filed as Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition. It is further not disputed that an employee who has completed 20 years of service is entitled to exercise this option. But what is claimed is that the opposite parties having not allowed the application of petitioner he cannot be deemed to have voluntarily retired. It is also averred that petitioner was absent from 22nd May, 1985 and his application for leave from 22nd May 1985 was not allowed. The Railways scheme for voluntary retirement appears to have been enforced in 1977. It permitted a railway servant who had put in not less than 20 years of service to retire by giving notice of three months of the scheme provided that a notice of voluntary retirement after completion of 20 years qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing authority. Such acceptance may be given generally except those (a) in which disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the Railway servant concerned for the imposition of major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case is of the view that the imposition of the penalty or removal or dismissal from service would be warranted in the case or (b) in which prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law against the railway servant concerned. If it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement even in such cases, approval of the Minister -in -charge should be obtained in regard to Group 'A' and Group 'B' Railway servants and that the General Managers in the case of Group 'C' and Group 'D' railway servants. Even where the notice of voluntary retirement given by a railway servant requires acceptance by the appointing authority, the railway servant giving notice may presume acceptance and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice unless the competent authority issues an order to the contrary before the expiry of the period of notice.
(2.) IN 1981 this clause was further clarified. The requirement of acceptance was given up except in cases of suspended employees. It further entitled employee to withdraw the notice before expiry of three months. The order removed doubt by providing that in such cases it was not necessary to observe formality of issuing letter of acceptance and the services of such employee shall be deemed to have come to an end automatically after expiry of period mentioned in notice. Even in respect of suspended employees the order provides that if the order refusing to accept the notice is not given within period of notice then the suspended employee shall be deemed to have retired. Voluntary retirement by virtue of these orders is a right of employee which can be exercised by him after completion of 20 years service. It cannot be curtailed or the consent cannot be withheld except in circumstances mentioned therein. The expression 'such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except..' in clause (vii) of 1977 Order does not leave any option with appointing authority to refuse it except in the two cases mentioned therein. It stands strengthened by 1981 Order which clarifies the doubt and renders the right of a railway servant to retire voluntarily absolute. The word 'may' in the context has to be understood as 'shall'. In a country where unemployment is rampant if an employee for any reason seeks retirement then, normally, rather always, it should be welcome except of course where it is to avoid facing disciplinary proceedings etc. And that appears to be spirit and content of 1977 Order. The doubt if any was further dispelled in 1981. A combined reading of two orders leaves no room for doubt that no order accepting request of voluntary retirement is necessary except in cases of suspension or other proceedings. It is automatic.
(3.) JUDGED in this light it is apparent that the right exercised by petitioner seeking voluntary retirement could not be curtailed by asserting that it was not accepted by the appointing authority. Since no proceedings were pending against petitioner and he admittedly had completed 27 years of service on 11th May, 1985 when notice of voluntary retirement was given, it seems to us, no express order or consent by appointing authority was called for.;