- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order An-nexure-3 passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be voluntarily retired from service with effect from the date, he is relieved from his duty. In pursuance of this order Annexure-3, the petitioner has been relieved from duty with effect from 31. 5. 1986 vide order Annexure-5 dated 31. 5. 1986 passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Doongarpur.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that he sought voluntary retirement initially vide his application dated 22. 10. 1983 with effect from 1. 5. 1984 on account of certain family circumstances but when no acceptance of his voluntary retirement was received upto 1. 5. 1984, he continued the service. THEreafter, he moved one more application in the month of May 1985 for being granted voluntary retirement with effect from 15. 7. 1985 but when that too was not accepted in time, he continued in service but all of a sudden, on 4. 4. 1986, an order came from the Chief Engineer that he has been voluntarily retired from service with effect from the date, he is relieved from his duty. According to the petitioner, this was no at all an acceptance of his proposal but it was a fresh proposal and therefore, by rejecting this fresh proposal, he submitted a counter proposal that if they want to retire him voluntarily then they should do so with effect from 31. 3. 1987 when he completes 28 years of his service. His counter proposal was not accepted and he was retired voluntarily from service with effect from 31. 5. 1986. It was contended that in the order Annexure 3 dated 4. 4. 1986 whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be retired voluntarily from Govt. service from the date he is relieved from duty, one of the conditions of his retirement was production of No-Dues Certificate. According to the petitioner, No Dues Certificate has been issued in his favour on 17. 12. 1990 and, therefore, he can be treated as retired from the service at best with effect from 17. 12. 1990 when No Dues Certificate was issued in his favour and not prior to that. That also is his alternative plea. His main plea is that since his resignation was not accepted in time, he continued to be in service and, therefore, he should be allowed to be continued in service till he attains the age of superannuation and thereafter, all retiral benefits should be paid to him. According to the petitioner, the Pension Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan has also raised an objection vide its letter dated 3. 2. 1987 that how the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted with effect from 31. 5. 1986 and on that objection, the Executive Engineer sought instructions from the Chief Engineer vide his letter dated 16. 2. 1987. The petitioner also submitted a representation (Annexure-8) on 23. 2. 1987 against his retirement with effect from 31. 5. 1986 but no reply was received and, therefore, on 7. 3. 1987, he filed an application for rejoining the duty and that was inwarded but he was not allowed to work. The Superintending Engineer also wrote a letter (Annexure 12) on 26. 3. 1987 to the Chief Engineer seeking his guidance in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner further filed a representation (Annexure 13) on 10. 2. 1988 but that too has not been replied. The Executive Engineer also wrote a letter (Annexure 14) on 13. 4. 1988 to the Chief Engineer seeking further instructions. However, the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice vide Annexure-15 dated 20. 9. 1989 and, thereafter, he filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 1957 of 1991 (Tulsiram vs. State of Raj.), in which all the facts which are contained in this writ petition were alleged and the reliefs which are sought in this writ petition were also sought through that writ petition. However, that writ petition was decided by a learned single Judge of this Court vide his Order dated 25. 4. 1991, whereby the learned single Judge has directed the Department to decide the representation Annexure-16 dated 5. 12. 1990 filed by the petitioner after affording him an opportunity of being heard and it was left open that if the petitioner is aggrieved by that order, he can file a fresh writ petition before this Court. In pursuance of that order, the petitioner was called for personal hearing and he was granted personal hearing. He submitted his written submissions. However, vide order Annexure-22 dated 2/22. 1. 1992, the aforesaid representation Annexure-16 dated 15. 12. 1990 has been rejected and his voluntary retirement from service with effect from 31. 5. 1986 has been sustained and, therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that the order Aunexure-22 is a non-speaking order. The principles of natural justice has not been followed. The contentions that were raised by him in his written submissions as also in his Representation have not been considered and a mechanical order without non-application of mind has been passed rejecting his representation and, therefore, his writ petition be allowed and he be treated to be- in continuous service. However, in the alternative, it has been pleaded that he can be retired only from the day No Dues Certificate was issued in his favour. A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which it has been claimed that the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement can be accepted at any time. Moreover, once the petitioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement and when he did not receive any adverse order, he was required to cease to work of his own accord on the expiry of the period of notice. Voluntary retirement in such matters is automatic. According to the respondents, vide order Annexure-3, no such condition was placed that he can only be retired from service, if No Dues Certificate is produced by him. It was therefore, contended that the voluntary retirement of the petitioner with effect from 31. 5. 1986 is absolutely valid and proper and it requires no interference.
(3.) A rejoinder to the reply has been filed in which almost same grounds have been asserted and reiterated which have been taken in the writ petition. I have heard Mr. Vinod Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shanker Mal Singhvi, the learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the case. It was contended by Mr. Vinod Purohit, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the petitioner has offered to retire from a particular date and when he has not been retired from that date, the State Govt. cannot choose a dated of its own accord to voluntarily retire him from service. He has submitted that retiring the petitioner voluntarily vide order Annexure-3 dated 4. 4. 1986 is a fresh proposal and if the petitioner does not accept that proposal, the State Govt. has no authority to retire him voluntarily as has been done vide order Annexure-3 read with Order Annexure-5. ;