- (1.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction against the respondents to accept his application for premature retirement from the State services under Rule 50(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). Besides the aforementioned relief, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction against the respondents to release his pension, gratuity, commutation of pension and leave encashment benefits by treating him to be retired from services w.e.f. 31st of January 2013. Scorning the detailed facts for the purpose of adjudication of the lis involved in the matter, suffice it to state that while posted as Medical Officer, Community Health Centre Sumerpur, District Pali, the petitioner made endeavour to seek voluntary retirement from the State services and for that purpose he has served an application in the form of three months' notice on 1 st of May 2011 (Annex.1) which was addressed to the second respondent, the Director (Public Health), Medical and Health Service, Government of Rajasthan. The said application was submitted by the petitioner by invoking Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 1996. In his application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner has narrated the reasons for his premature retirement w.e.f. 1 st of August 2011 with clarity and precision. As demonstrated from the averments contained in the writ petition, the said application of the petitioner was not paid any heed by the respondents and therefore in these circumstances yet again petitioner applied for voluntary retirement vide his application dated 23rd of October 2012 seeking voluntary retirement from services w.e.f 1 st of February 2013. At that relevant point of time when application dated 23rd of October 2012 was submitted by the petitioner, he was posted as Medical Officer, Government District Hospital, Hanumangarh Town. In response to his second application for voluntary retirement dated 23 rd of October 2012, the third respondent addressed a communication dated 4 th of December 2012 to the Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh stating therein that file of the petitioner for processing his application for voluntary retirement has been sent to the State Government for its decision and the decision is awaited.
(2.) A copy of the said communication was also endorsed to the petitioner with a direction not to quit his job until final decision is taken by the Government. The petitioner has further averred that after a lapse of three months from the date of his application by virtue of deeming provision contained in proviso to Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner stands retired from services with effect from 1 st of February 2013. As the lis involved in the matter hover around the applicability and construction of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, complete text of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced as infra. 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." (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.
(3.) On behalf of respondents, reply to the writ petition is submitted. The respondents in their counter have admitted the receipt of application of the petitioner dated 23rd of October 2012. While responding to the legislative intent of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, the respondents have averred in the reply that application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement is under consideration and until and unless final decision is taken by the competent authority, deeming provision cannot be invoked. Defending their action of not permitting the petitioner to retire voluntarily, the respondents have specifically averred in the reply that paucity of expert doctors is a cause of grave and serious concern for the Government and that being so the Government in the public interest has not permitted the petitioner to retire prematurely.;