Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.
Ram Niwas Yadav Ret’d Gram Sewak S/o Shri Jagmal Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2881 Of 2012
Decided On : 14-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Singh Yadav
For the Respondent: Mr. Manvijay Singh Rathore for Mr. Kesar Singh Shekhawat, Addl. GC
Acceptance of voluntary retirement binds the authority to grant retiral benefits, even if the qualifying service is incomplete.
Headnote:
(A) Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 - Rule 50 - Voluntary retirement - Petitioner applied for VRS due to mental health, accepted without completing 15 years of service - Respondents denied retiral benefits citing incomplete service - Court held that acceptance of VRS binds respondents to grant benefits despite service duration - Precedent from Sudheer Kumar Khana case applied. (Paras 6, 8, 9)
(B) Estoppel - State cannot deny benefits after accepting premature retirement based on erroneous assumptions - Denial of benefits creates a contradictory situation for the petitioner. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought VRS due to mental health, which was accepted, but later denied retiral benefits for not completing 15 years of service.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the respondents must grant retiral benefits as they accepted the VRS application.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to retiral benefits despite not completing 15 years of service after VRS acceptance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that once the VRS was accepted, the respondents are bound to provide benefits, regardless of the qualifying service duration.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders quashed; respondents directed to grant retiral benefits.
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 that the petitioner was not entitled to get VRS, his application seeking VRS could have been rejected but the same was allowed and his premature retirement application was accepted. Counsel submits that for the aforesaid act on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be allowed to make sufferer. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sudheer Kumar Khana vs. State of Rajsthan reported in 2018 (4) WLC (Raj.) 117.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner himself submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement on account of his mental health conditions and looking to the same, his prayer was accepted and he was granted VRS with effect from 01.02.2008. Counsel submits that as per the Rules, a person is entitled to seek VRS with pensionary benefits if he/she completes 15 years of qualifying service but in the instant case, the petitioner has not completed the said period, hence, under these circumstances, he was not entitled to get VRS at pensionary benefits. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.
5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.
6. This fact is not in dispute that as per Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) a person can apply for voluntary retirement after completion of 15 years of qualifying service. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has not completed the said period and prior to completion of that period, he submitted an application seeking VRS with effect from 01.02.2008. This fact is also not in dispute that the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner was not rejected by the respondents but the same was allowed and the petitioner was allowed to get premature retirement. The mistake was committed not only by the petitioner but also by the respondents, the respondents could have rejected the application submitted by the petitioner but instead of doing so, they have accepted the premature retirement of the petitioner based on wrong assumptions.
7. It is quite shocking and surprising that when this fact came into the notice of the State authorities that the VRS could not have been granted to the petitioner, the State authorities could have cancelled the order accepting the VRS of the petitioner but instead of doing so, they have justified their stand. Now, at this stage, the respondents cannot deny the retiral benefits of the petitioner only on the count that the petitioner has retired as at a premature stage without completing 15
