- (1.) The petitioner was working as Gram Sewak in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Respondent No. 3. After completion of qualifying service i.e. service qualifying for pension or attaining 50 years of age, he sent notice dated June 16, 1989, to the appropriate authority seeking retirement in terms of the provisions of Rule 3(2) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 , on the expiry of a period of three months. The petitioner, however, did not hear anything by way of reply. He ultimately made a representation dated July 27, 1992, which, too remained unheeded. He has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus that as the respondent authorities failed to retire the petitioner, he may be deemed to have continued in service till date and he may be paid his salary and other benefits accordingly.
(2.) In reply to notice of motion, written statement has been filed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer - respondent No. 3. It has been stated that notice of the petitioner seeking premature retirement dated June 16, 1989 had been accepted with effect from September 30, 1989 and a formal order to this effect was passed on April 19, 1993. With regard to processing of the pension papers and other retiral benefits, it has been stated that the petitioner himself submitted the requisite papers after August 5, 1993, and the same were forwarded to the Accountant General, respondent No. 2 without any delay. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 2, the action taken with regard to release of the retiral benefits of the petitioner has been set out in detail, with a view to showing that prompt action has been taken after the receipt of the necessary papers.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for both the parties. The main question which requires consideration in this case is whether the retirement is authomatic in terms of the relevant rules or the same has to be agreed to by the appropriate authority. Rule 3 relates to premature retirement. Sub-rule (1) empowers the appropriate authority to retire an employee by giving him not less than three months' notice on the date on which such employee completes 25 years of qualifying service attains 50 years of age or on any date thereafter, be specified in the notice. Sub-rule (2) confers similar right on the employee. The right conferred on the employee is dealt with under two parts in sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3), sub-rule (2) confers a right on the government employee to retire on the date on which he completes 25 years of qualifying service or attains 50 years of age or on any date thereafter, to be specified in a notice of at least three month's duration. Sub-rule (3), on the other hand, confers a right on the employee to retire by serving a notice of not less than three months in writing after he has completed 20 years of qualifying service. The relevant provisions read as under :- "(2) Any Government employee may, after giving at least three months' previous notice in writing to appropriate authority retire from service on the date on which he completes twenty five years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter, to be specified in the notice : Provided that no employee under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the appropriate authority. (3)(a) At any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority retire from service. (b) The notice of voluntary retirement given under this sub-rule shall require acceptance by the appropriate authority. (c) Where the appropriate authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice. The retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. It will be seen that while sub-rule (2) relates to a case where the employee has completed 25 years of qualifying service or attained the age of 50 years, sub-rule (3) relates to a case where the employee has completed only 20 years of qualifying service. It may further be noted that there is nothing in sub-rule (2) which requires concurrence of the appropriate authority or any further Act on the part of the appropriate authority to effectuate the intention of the employee seeking premature retirement. The only exception laid down in the provision to sub-rule (2) is a case in which the employee is under suspension. It is only where the employee is under suspension that specific approval of the appropriate authority is required for retirement to materialise under sub-rule (2). In the case of sub-rule (3), on the other hand, it is specifically provided in sub-rule 3(b) that notice of voluntary retirement given under the said sub-rule shall require acceptance by the appropriate authority. It was averred in para 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner joined service as Gram Sewak in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the year 1962. It is further not disputed that the notice in question was served on June 16, 1989. It follows that the petitioner had completed more than 25 years of service and his case was thus covered under sub-rule (2). Further, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the provision to sub-rule (2) because admittedly he was not under suspension when he served the notice dated June 16, 1989. In terms of the provisions of sub-rule (2), therefore, no acceptance of the notice was required and, therefore, the petitioner stood retired on the expiry of the period of three months i.e. from September 30, 1989 as mentioned in the formal order dated April 19, 1993. Annexure R-1 filed with the written statement.;