The appointing authority is not authorised and/or entitled to withhold permission to a Government employee to retire in public interest in terms of Note 3 to Rule 75(aaa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I.

1. The State of West Bengal and the authorities of the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal have filed this writ petition assailing the judgment and order dated 8th October, 2013 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 562 of 2013 whereby the said learned Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the respondent-doctor herein by directing the Principal Secretary to accept the voluntary retirement of the said respondent-doctor if there is no bar under the statutory provisions.

2. Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutta, learned Senior Advocate representing the authorities concerned namely, the petitioners herein submits that the authorities are entitled to refuse the prayer for voluntary retirement of an employee in public interest specially in terms of Note 3 to sub-rule (aaa) of Rule 75 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I. Mr. Dutta further submits that the learned Tribunal while considering the aforesaid prayer of the employee concerned namely, the respondent herein, did not take note of the aforesaid provisions of the West Bengal Service Rules in an appropriate manner. Mr. Dutta also submits that the learned Tribunal should not have decided the matter on the very first day without granting any opportunity to the State-respondents to file affidavits in the matter.

3. Mr. Dutta relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of People's University v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2012) 9 SCC 714. Mr. Dutta specifically refers to Head Note 'C' of the said decision and submits that by not allowing time to the State Advocate to seek instructions and file a response prior to deciding the matter violates natural justice.

4. Going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal, we find that the said learned Tribunal granted opportunity of hearing to the learned Advocate representing the State respondents and specifically recorded in the impugned order as hereunder:

"We, therefore, after hearing both the sides and on examination of the ground of rejection held categorically that the ground of rejection cannot be sustained within the statutory provision, and hence, we reject the same"

5. The aforesaid decision, in our opinion, therefore, has no manner of application in the facts of the present case specially when the learned State Advocate did not pray before the learned Tribunal for allowing time to seek instructions and admittedly made necessary submissions.

6. Let us now consider whether the authorities concerned are really entitled to refuse voluntary retirement of an employee in terms of the aforesaid provisions of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I.

7. Rule 75(aaa) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I as well as Note 3 appended below the aforesaid sub-rule are set out hereunder:

" Rule 75. *** *** **

(aaa) Any Government employee may, by giving notice of not less than 3 months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from Government service after he has attained the age of 50 years, if he is in Group A or Group B (erstwhile gazetted) service or post, and had entered Government service before attaining the age of 35 years; and in all other cases, after he has attained the age of 55 years, provided that it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to a Government employee under suspension who seeks to retire under this sub-rule.

*** *** ***

*** *** ***

Note 3. - The appointing authority should invariably keep on record that in his opinion it is necessary to retire the Government employee in pursuance of aforesaid rule in public interest."

8. In terms of the aforesaid provisions, it is undisputedly, open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to a Government employee under suspension who seeks to retire under the aforesaid sub-rule.

9. In the present case, the respondent-employee concerned is not under suspension. Note 3 appended to the aforesaid sub-rule, however, casts obligation on the appo