Back
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Dilbag Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. - Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 6th October, 2021 vide which the Petitioner was denied voluntary retirement by the competent authority on the ground that he is under order of posting to 49 Bn BSF. The competent authority also directed that the Petitioner may submit his notice of voluntary retirement at his new place of posting if he intends to proceed on voluntary retirement from service.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner, a Head Constable with the BSF, submitted his voluntary retirement notice to the Commandant 25 Bn, BSF under Rule 48 (a) GID (i) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the same was accepted by the competent authority under Rule 5 read with Rule 30 of the BSF Rules, 1969 vide order dated 5th October, 2020. He states that as per this order the Petitioner was supposed to be struck off from the rolls from 1st January, 2021. He states that this order was cancelled vide order dated 21st December, 2020 upon the request of the Petitioner as he had sustained an injury on his left shoulder.
3. He further states that the Petitioner sought to apply for voluntary retirement again and to extend his
The application for voluntary retirement should be considered by the new unit after the petitioner's transfer.
The competent authority's requirement for a retirement application at a new posting is valid, and voluntary retirement can only be denied if service interests demand it.
The main legal point established is the requirement to consider the voluntary retirement application and communicate the decision before issuing transfer orders.
The right to voluntarily retire under Rule 56(k) is deemed accepted if no communication is made to withhold permission before the notice period expires.
Point of law: if the application for voluntary retirement would have been accepted by the appointing authority on the subsequent representation moved by the petitioner, he would have retired from ser....
The court's decision was based on the satisfaction of the relief sought by the petitioner through an office order issued by the respondents, in accordance with the relevant rules.
Voluntary retirement requires explicit acceptance from the appointing authority and cannot be deemed effective solely based on a lack of response.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
