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 interpretation of the completion of qualifying service for premature retirement.

JUDGMENT

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - Petitioner'S request for premature retirement on medical grounds was turned down by the respondents on 03.01.2018 as he had not completed the qualifying service of twenty years at that time. His same request made second time on 27.03.2019, when he was about to complete twenty years, was rejected on 19.06.2019 allegedly due to paucity of staff. Respondents issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 06.01.2021 for his unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 18.11.2019. Aggrieved, he filed the instant writ petition, primarily seeking a direction to the respondents to retire him prematurely besides praying for quashing of orders passed by them rejecting his such requests. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of show cause notice issued to him. During pendency of the petition, the respondents have also issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner for his wilful absence from duty.

2. Facts:-

2(i). Petitioner joined the respondent-Department on 30.06.1999 as Horticulture Development Officer, which is a Class-I post.

2(ii). On 10.09.2017, citing medical problems of his own and that of his aged mother, petitioner requested for premature retirement. His request was not accepted by the respondents on the ground that he had not completed qualifying regular service of twenty years at that time. Relevant portion of communication dated 03.01.2018 (Annexure P-2), rejecting petitioner's request for premature retirement, reads as under:-

"I am directed to refer to your letter No.4-859/99(PF)-UdyanI dated 30.10.2017 on the subject cited above and to say that the matter has been examined in consultation with the Department of Personnel and it has been observed that Sh. Sanjay Chadha, HDO does not fulfil the eligibility criteria of 20 years of regular service for pre-mature retirement as defined in the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel vide their letter No.Per (AP-B)B(18)-1/2006 dated 01.08.2013. Consequently, his representation for pre-mature retirement is rejected."

2(iii). On medical grounds, petitioner applied for Extraordinary Leave (EOL) on 26.07.2018. The respondents on 27.08.2018 (Annexure P-4) granted ex-post facto sanction of eight months' EOL w.e.f. 30.07.2018 to 26.03.2019. The period was to count towards petitioner's annual increment and service. The terms of sanction of EOL read as under:-

"It is, certified that Dr. Sanjay Chadha, Deputy Project Director, ATMA, Mandi, would have continued to officiate against the post though he was on leave yet the period of said leave shall count towards his annual increment. It is, certified that the officer will submit his joining report at the same place and post from where he proceeded on leave."

2(iv). On petitioner's request, ex-post facto sanction of 96 days' earned leave w.e.f. 01.04.2019 to 28.06.2019 was accorded to him on 28.05.2019. The terms of leave remained the same as extracted earlier.

2(v). Citing his ill health as well as medical problems of his aged mother, petitioner on 27.03.2019, sent a communication to the respondents, once again requesting for premature retirement by submitting that he would be completing twenty years of qualifying service on 30.06.2019. He also stated that his letter be treated as three months' notice mandated under the Rules. The petitioner pleads that he was not given any written response by the respondents to his request for premature retirement, however, he came to know that respondents had rejected his request on count of paucity of staff. Petitioner on 03.07.2019, requested the respondents to reconsider his prayer for premature retirement.

2(vi). On 28.11.2019, ex-post facto sanction was accorded in favour of the petitioner of 149 days' half pay leave w.e.f. 03.07.2019 to 11.11.2019 on the basis of medical fitness certificate on same usual terms and conditions as extracted earlier.

2(vii). In response to petitioner's application for further leave, the respondents on 31.12.2019 (Annexure P-11), directed him to joi