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.

JUDGMENT :

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

1. The petitioner, a Superintending Engineer (in short, “SE”) (Civil) in the Border Roads Organization (in short, “BRO”) has approached this Court to seek directions to the respondents to consider the petitioner as deemed to have voluntarily retired with effect from 17.04.2024 pursuant to his applications dated 30.12.2023 and 30.03.2024 under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (in short, “CCS Pension Rules”). Although, in the petition the petitioner has taken the ground of voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k) of the Fundamental Rules (in short, “FRs”). Additionally, the petitioner has also sought directions to the respondents for grant of all pensionary benefits.

2. We may set out the relevant facts as follows:-

a) The petitioner was appointed in the General Reserve Engineer Force (in short, “GREF”) in BRO on 04.03.1995 as an Assistant Executive Engineer (in short, “AEE”) (Civil). He was promoted to the rank of SE (Civil) on 16.12.2017 through the Departmental Promotion.

b) The petitioner was medically examined by the Medical Board, which vide its report dated 13.08.2022, placed the petitioner in the medical category of 'SHAPE - 2Z'. He was found to be obese and suffering from 'Dyslipidemia' and 'Bronchial Asthma' and was opined to be 'UNFIT' for 'HAA/ECC/Hilly' areas.

c) After serving for over 30 years in Hilly terrains of the country, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement with effect from 01.04.2024 under Rule 48 of the CCS Pension Rules citing his health challenges and facing responsibilities of his aged parents, with ailing father, vide applications submitted on 30.12.2023 and 01.01.2024. The petitioner had completed 31 years 10 months and 6 days of service in GREF as on 31.12.2023.

d) A reminder was sent by his office vide letter dated 26.03.2024 to the Head Quarter, expressing the urgency of the sanction from the competent authority for petitioner's voluntary retirement, however to no avail. The petitioner sent another letter dated 30.03.2024 requesting to voluntary retire from 16.04.2024 instead of 01.04.2024, yet no action was taken by the respondents, thus, leading to filing of the present writ petition on ground of voluntary retirement under Rule 56(k) of the FRs.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

3. Mr. Tapas Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner, raised two contentions before us. He submitted that the petitioner had preferred the application seeking voluntary retirement, giving over three months' notice, fulfilling all the requisite conditions under Rule 56(k) of the FRs. He submitted that neither any disciplinary or judicial proceedings is pending against the petitioner, as he has not been put to notice regarding any alleged offence committed by him during the course of his employment. He submitted that there is no provision in the FRs to withhold the right of an employee seeking voluntary retirement, except in certain contingencies, that is, when the employee is under suspension or when a departmental inquiry is pending or contemplated against the employee. He submitted that even otherwise, in case of aforementioned contingencies, the authority concerned has to pass a specific order withholding permission to retire and must also communicate the same to the employee. He submitted that upon completion of the notice period, the petitioner is to be treated as having voluntary retired with effect from 17.04.2024.

4. The learned counsel submitted that as the petitioner received no response from the Appointing Authority, in spite of the reminder given by his Unit where he was posted, therefore, he be declared to have been volu