Case Summary

Parties and Procedural History
Union of India & Others (Appellants/Petitioners) challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench order dated 01.03.2024 in O.A. No. 802/2023, which allowed the respondent-employee's voluntary retirement application dated 09.05.2023 and quashed rejection dated 07.07.2023 and Circular dated 12.05.2023 (!) (!) (!) .

Facts
- Respondent appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 27.08.1996, promoted to Upper Division Clerk (10.01.2011) and Assistant (12.01.2021) (!) .
- Suffered family tragedies: brother's family died in accident, parents depressed, father died, mother lost speech, suffered depression, cancer, diabetes; respondent has uncontrolled diabetes, breathing issues (!) (!) .
- Applied for retention at Nagpur (24.03.2023); gave transfer preferences (West Circle Vadodara, North Circle) but transferred to Guwahati (25.04.2023, ~1851 km away), joined 08.05.2023, took leave post 14.05.2023 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Submitted 3-month voluntary retirement notice under Rule 48-A & 48-B CCS (Pension) Rules on 09.05.2023 (!) (!) (!) .

Petitioners' Arguments
- Discretion under Rule 48-A(2) CCS Pension Rules to accept/reject voluntary retirement absolute (!) (!) .
- Tribunal erred on respondent's age (not 57 years) (!) .
- Relief contrary to Circular 12.05.2023 and Rule 56(k)(1) Fundamental Rules; staff shortage/public interest/public policy (!) (!) (!) .
- Voluntary retirement not absolute right (!) .

Respondent's Arguments
- Qualifies under Rule 48-A CCS Pension Rules (20+ years service, 3-month notice, no disciplinary/prosecution issues) (!) (!) (!) .
- Rule 56(k)(1) FR inapplicable (elected CCS Pension Rules remedy) (!) (!) .
- Circular 12.05.2023 overrides rules, invalid; rejection arbitrary (!) (!) .
- Discretion not absolute, must be judicious (!) (!) .

Court's Analysis and Findings
- Respondent completed 26+ years service, no disciplinary/prosecution bars; entitled to apply under Rule 48-A(1), acceptance required under Rule 48-A(2) unless expiry deems effective (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Rule 48-A rejection grounds limited (disciplinary/prosecution); staff shortage not valid (!) .
- Rule 56(k)(1) FR inapplicable (doctrine of election of remedies; chose CCS Pension Rules) (!) (!) .
- Discretion not absolute/arbitrary (violates Article 14); consider employee circumstances (health/family hardships, unwanted transfer) (!) (!) .
- Circular 12.05.2023 contravenes rules, invalid (executive instructions cannot override statutory rules) (!) .
- Tribunal's age error immaterial; upheld direction to accept VRS w.e.f. 09.08.2023 (or 09.05.2023 per Tribunal), release benefits (!) (!) .

Ratio Decidendi
Employer discretion to accept/reject voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A CCS Pension Rules not absolute; must be exercised judiciously, considering employee's circumstances (e.g., health/family issues), not arbitrarily (e.g., staff shortage) [p_1 (IMPORTANT POINT)] (!) (!) (!) .

Result
Writ petition dismissed; Tribunal order upheld; respondent retired w.e.f. 09.08.2023; pension/benefits directed (!) (!) (!) .