DURESH NARAYAN MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJ

LAWS(RAJ)-2012-9-59

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Decided on September 11,2012

DURESH NARAYAN MATHUR Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that Your Lordship may be pleased to allow this writ petition and - a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the petitioner may be declared voluntarily retired as per the provisions of Rule 50(2) of the Rules of 1996. b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to release all the retiral benefits to the petitioner forthwith alongwith interest @ 12% on due amount. c) IN addition to above, by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order which will be passed during the pendency of the writ petition upon the application seeking voluntary retirement dated 13.07.2010 of petitioner, after summoning from the respondents may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside; d) any other appropriate order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed; and e) the petitioner may kindly be allowed the cost of writ petition." Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer on 30.03.1988 and after completion of 15 years of services in the year 2010, an application was filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 50(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 on 13.07.2010 (Annexure- 1) for seeking voluntary retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the day on which the petitioner filed an application for voluntary retirement, there was no pendency of departmental inquiry nor any criminal case was pending against the petitioner, therefore, in view of Rule 50 (1) of the Rules of 1996 the application filed by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was to be accepted by the respondents and respondents were under legal obligation to release his retiral benefits, But inspite of the fact that application of the petitioner was in accordance with the Rules the respondents did not pass any order before expiry of period of notice but later on a letter dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure-R/1) filed aongwith reply stating therein that due to non-availability of the Medical Officers, the application for voluntary retirement has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the reasons mentioned in the letter dated 29.11.2010, the respondents cannot deny the acceptance of voluntary retirement because as per Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 voluntary retirement can be refused if any departmental inquiry is pending against an employee or he is facing any criminal trial, both the grounds are not in existence, therefore, the respondents were under an obligation to accept the petitioner's prayer for voluntary retirement after expiry of three months from the date of submitting the application for voluntary retirement, which is 13.07.2010. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that due to non-availability of Medical Officer and health condition of the citizens of the State, it was decided by the Government not to accept the voluntary retirement application, therefore, there is no illegality in the order because the decision of Government cannot be questioned if it is taken in public interestd. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused Rule 50 (1) of the Rules of 1996, which provides right to the employee to seek voluntary retirement. The Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996 is as follows:- "[50. Retirement on completion of 15 years' qualifying Service (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service.]" Admittedly, petitioner was appointed on the post of Medical Officer and after completion of requisite period, an application was filed for voluntary retirement and according to the Rules of 1996 petitioner is very much entitled to seek voluntary retirement, therefore, the reason mentioned in the order of denial of acceptance of voluntary retirement is totally illegal and contrary to the Rules of 1996. In view of above, the order impugned is not sustainable in law, therefore, the same is hereby quashed and this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner voluntarily retired after expiring of period of notice w.e.f. 19.10.2010 and grant him all retiral benefits within a period of three months from the date of producing certified copy of this order.;

Click here to view full judgement.