C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. - (1.) Order dated 20.01.2016 in O.A.No.4702 of 2015 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal) is called in question by the respondents to the said O.A., i.e. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Infrastructure and Investment Department, Hyderabad and the Director of Ports, Kakinada.
(2.) The facts in brief are that respondent No.2 was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in petitioner No.2 department in the year 1992. Petitioner No.1 has framed a scheme of voluntary retirement of State Government employees vide G.O.Ms.No.413, FINANCE & PLG.(FIN.WING -PEN.I) DEPARTMENT, dated 29.11.1977. The scheme facilitates the Government servants who have put in not less than 20 years of qualifying service to take voluntary retirement by giving at least three months notice in writing to the authority which has power to make a substantive appointment to the post from which he proposes to retire. Pleading that respondent No.2 had innumerable family problems, he approached petitioner No.2 with an application for permission to take voluntary retirement. 11 other employees of petitioner No.2 have also made similar applications. By a common proceeding, vide Memo No.DoP/B1/1098/2015, dated 25.07.2015, petitioner No.2 has rejected their applications in purported exercise of his power under Rule -43(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short Pension Rules). Assailing this proceeding, respondent No.2 has filed O.A.No.4702 of 2015. Petitioner No.2 has filed a counter affidavit seeking to sustain his decision. After considering the respective pleadings of the parties and hearing the counsel, the Tribunal allowed the O.A by rendering a finding that under the extant pension scheme the competent authority has power to refuse the request for voluntary retirement only when departmental/court proceedings are pending or contemplated against the Government servant seeking voluntary retirement. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Smt.I.Mammu Vani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that an inherent discretion exists in employer either to accept or reject applications for voluntarily retirement and that for various reasons mentioned in the counter affidavit relating to administrative exigencies, the petitioners had to perforce reject the applications of respondent No.2 and 11 others and that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in allowing the O.A filed by respondent No.2.;