SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 367

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Dr. Dinesh Gajanan Kamat – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9046 OF 2022 With Civil Appeal Nos. 9048, 9049, 9047 & 9050 of 2022
Decided On : 03-04-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Parthiv Goswami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Adv. Ms. Harsimran Kaur Rai, Adv. Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Aadarsh Dubey, Adv. Mrs. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR

For a resignation to be considered as voluntary retirement under Section 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982, the essential components of Rule 66 must be fulfilled or substantially fulfilled.

Headnote:

Pension - Resignation and Voluntary Retirement - The court considered whether employees who had resigned after completing more than 20 years of service could be treated as applicants for voluntary retirement under Section 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982. The court interpreted Rule 66 and concluded that the essential components of Rule 66 were not fulfilled or substantially fulfilled in the case of the petitioners' resignations, and therefore, their resignations could not be considered as voluntary retirement.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants sought pension and gratuity benefits after resigning from their positions in Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic Aided Institutions. The Government of Maharashtra had denied their pensionary and other benefits based on the provisions of Rule 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court found that the essential components of Rule 66 were not fulfilled or substantially fulfilled in the case of the petitioners' resignations, and therefore, their resignations could not be considered as voluntary retirement. The court dismissed the appeals and disposed of any pending applications.

Issues: The main issue was whether the resignations of the appellants could be treated as voluntary retirement under Section 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 66 and concluded that for a voluntary retirement to take effect, the procedure laid down in Rule 66 had to be followed. The court found that the essential components of Rule 66 were not fulfilled or substantially fulfilled in the case of the petitioners' resignations.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and disposed of any pending applications.

ORDER

1. The present appeals impugn the common judgment and order dated 28th February, 2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.30490 of 2018.

2. The said Writ Petition had been filed against an order dated 22nd June, 2018 (Annexure P9) which denied the present appellants (writ petitioners before the High Court), pension. They further sought a declaration that employees of Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathic Aided Institutions opting for voluntary retirement/resignation after completing the qualifying service period, would be entitled to pension and gratuity benefits.

3. Before proceeding to the judgment impugned before us, it would be essential to take note of the reason by which the Government of Maharashtra vide the Notification dated 22nd June, 2018, as noticed above, denied the present appellants’ pensionary and other benefits. The order records the reasoning, which is common to all the appellants. We extract the relevant portion of the Notification which concerns the appellant in C.A.No.9046/2022, as under :

“1) Vaidya Dinesh Gajanan Kamat :- Mr. Kamat is the first petitioner and he has resigned the post of Lecturer of surgery on 12.11.2009. The institution has accepted the resignation of Mr. Kamat on 12.11.2009 and he has been relieved after official time.

As per the provision of Rule 46 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982, if any employee desires to resign then he shall intimate in writing to the appointing authority prior to one month or shall deposit advance salary of one month. There is no provision prescribed in the Rules regarding providing the benefits to the employees after resignation. The Govt. has not yet made applicable the scheme of voluntary retirement for the employees in Govt. aided Ayurved and Unani colleges. As per the Govt. decision dtd. 10.08.2016 the benefit of the scheme of retirement and gratuity shall not be payable to Mr. Kamat.”

4. The question that the High Court was confronted with was whether the appellants who had resigned after completing more than 20 years of service could be treated as applicants for voluntary retirement under Section 66 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”). The High Court after detailed consideration of the said Rule observed –

“28. In our opinion, the language of Rule 66 is very clear and leaves no manner of doubt that for a voluntary retirement to take effect, the procedure laid down in Rule 66 has to be followed. Moreover, voluntary retirement becomes effective from the date of expiry of notice period of three months, unless on a request made in writing to the appointing authority, which decides to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor, in which case the period can be curtailed.

29. As per clause (2) of Rule 66, the notice of voluntary retirement requires acceptance by the appointing authority and the appointing authority can refuse to grant permission as per proviso to clause (2) of Rule 66. It is only when the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of period in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. From the materials on record, it is apparent that the intention of the petitioners was to resign from service. It is not as if the petitioners have given notice of three months and made a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept the resignation before expiry of three months giving reasons therefor. For that would have enabled us to juxtapose Rule 66 with the facts of the present case and come to the conclusion that the essential components of Rule 66 stand substantially fulfilled. As can be seen from the narration, none of the essential components of Rule 66 are fulfilled or substantially fulfilled for even then it may have been possible for us to consider the ‘resignation’ as ‘voluntary retireme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top