Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Ram Niwas Yadav Ret’d Gram Sewak S/o Shri Jagmal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of mental health condition, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondents seeking voluntary retirement from service (for short ‘VRS’) on 22.10.2007 with effect from 01.02.2008.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid application of the petitioner was forwarded by the Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Neemrana, District Alwar to the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar and thereafter, the matter was kept in general body meeting of the Panchayat Samiti on 31.12.2007 and the VRS application of the petitioner was accepted with effect from 01.02.2008. Counsel submits that immediately thereafter, a request was made by the petitioner to the respondent-authority for granting him retiral benefits. Counsel submits that the said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 29.01.2009 and 30.04.2009 stating therein that he has not completed 15 years qualifying service for getting VRS, hence, he is not entitled to get retiral benefits.
3. Counsel submits that if the respondents were of the view tha
Acceptance of voluntary retirement binds the authority to grant retiral benefits, even if the qualifying service is incomplete.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility for premature retirement under Rule 3(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976, and the interpretatio....
An employee can withdraw a voluntary retirement application before the effective date of retirement, as affirmed by the Court, ensuring that rights under Article 21 are protected; engaging in post-re....
The acceptance of a previously rejected application for voluntary retirement without following due process and principles of natural justice is illegal.
When the petitioner was not eligible to submit a notice to retire under Rule 48-A, rejection was beyond the period of three months and the petitioner is deemed to have retired is unsustainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a thorough examination of an employee's service history and qualifying service when considering a voluntary retirement scheme a....
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
