The court considered the exceptional circumstances of the respondent's health condition and inability to continue service in allowing the voluntary retirement, deviating from the usual eligibility requirements.

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 1.8.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, whereby it has allowed respondent’s OA No.275/2013.

2. On 5.9.1984, respondent was appointed as Primary Teacher in the petitioner - Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan. She, vide her acceptance dated 5.12.1984, opted for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. She, unfortunately, at the later stage of her service, suffered from acute health problem. She, therefore, applied for voluntary retirement from service on 10.9.2012. She also kept on applying for extra ordinary leave for several months. The Deputy Commissioner of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, vide letter dated 24/25.9.2012, informed the Principal of respondent that she was Contributory Provident Fund Scheme Optee and was not eligible for voluntary retirement, as she had neither attained 55 years of age nor had completed 30 years of service. The respondent, then again, submitted applications on 1.11.2012 and 4.12.2012 seeking voluntary retirement, in response to which, the Deputy Commissioner reiterated that she was not eligible for the same. But, since the physical condition of respondent was not allowing her to discharge her duties, she could not rejoin her service. Ultimately, the Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice dated 3.7.2013, to which, respondent submitted a reply. However, the petitioner not being impressed with the reply, removed the respondent from service vide order dated 26.7.2013. Aggrieved, the respondent filed OA No.275/2013, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 1.8.2014, directing the petitioner to treat her as retired from service and also to settle her retirement dues within three months.

3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that having regard to the efficient service rendered by the respondent as teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya, the petitioner intends to comply with the order of the Tribunal, subject to condition that it may not be treated as precedent.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid statement, we finally dispose of the writ petition with a direction that petitioner shall immediately comply with the impugned order of the Tribunal. We, however, observe that the order of the Tribunal shall not be treated as precedent.