Point of Law: It is necessary to go into the issue of whether the EOL / deputation period need to be regularized in the facts. The issue of grant of retiring pension on retirement under FR 56(k) is governed by Rule 36(a) of the pension rules.

JUDGMENT :

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, it shall be expedient for the ends of justice and equity that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

a. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the petitioner's case leading to the orders (decisions) dated 21.06.2021 & 27.08.2021, rejecting the petitioner's application/notice dated 01.06.2021 and 28.06.2021 for Voluntary Retirement and quash the same and further issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to process the petitioner's case of Retiral Benefits and other incidental exercise to be performed following the petitioner's voluntary retirement in accordance with law.

b. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in facts and circumstances coming to the notice during the pendency this petition.”

2. In substance, the petitioner is challenging the rejection of his application / notice for voluntary retirement, with a consequential prayer that he be granted the retiral benefits.

3. The case of the petitioner, as contended by Mr. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the respondent University on January 06, 2004 pursuant to an appointment letter issued on December 26, 2003. At the time of joining, the age of the petitioner was 32 years, 5 months and 2 days as his date of birth is August 04, 1971.

4. On June 01, 2021, the petitioner served a notice of three months seeking voluntary retirement on the respondent University. According to Mr. Chandra Shekhar, on the said date, the petitioner had, in all, put in 17 years, 7 months and 26 days of service. The said request of the petitioner was turned down by the respondent University vide the impugned communication dated June 21, 2021 on the ground that the request of the petitioner was examined under Rule 48(A) of CCS Pension Rules 1972 (‘Pension Rules’, for short) and the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria of having qualifying service. It is stated by Mr. Chandra Shekhar that on June 28, 2021, the petitioner gave a representation adverting to the fact that the petitioner did not seek voluntary retirement under Rule 48(A) of the Pension Rules, as, the contents of the petitioner’s letter dated June 01, 2021 clearly discloses that he sought voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules (‘FR’, for short) and on that basis, he sought reconsideration of the respondent’s decision dated June 21, 2021.

5. As no action was taken by the University, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition being W.P.(C) 8204/2021 challenging the order dated June 21, 2021, with a further prayer that he be relieved w.e.f. August 31, 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on August 23, 2021 directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated June 28, 2021.

6. According to Mr. Chandra Shekhar, it is pursuant thereto that the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated August 27, 2021 on two grounds, which include that the petitioner did not possess qualifying service of 15 years, as required under Rule 56(k) of the FR, because the petitioner availed Extraordinary Leave (‘EOL’, for short) from time to time and the said period is awaiting regularization. Mr. Chandra Shekhar would submit that this ground of the petitioner not having the qualifying service of 15 years is untenable, as the petitioner has availed the EOL after due sanction and the same is awaiting regularization.

7. That apart, even the stand of the learned counsel for the respondent that the proviso appended to Rule 56(k) of the FR that the petitioner having served South Asian University, New Delhi, his request could not have been considered till such time, he does not serve for a period of o