Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 3896
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR & R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Dr. R. Chandrasekaran
Versus
The Union of India, rep. by the Secretary to Government of India, New Delhi & Others
W.P. No. 24799 of 2009 & M.P. No.1 of 2009
Decided On : 20-11-2013
For the Petitioner:Bharathchakravarthy for M/s. Sai, Bharath, Ilan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, M. Rajasekaran, Standing Counsel, R3, M.T. Arunan, Advocate, R4, Tribunal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement request under Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR 56(k) when the application is not rejected or accepted within the notice period.
Headnote:
Voluntary Retirement - Service Rules - CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, FR 56(k), Rule 48(A) - The judgment discussed the application of Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR 56(k) in the context of deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement request. The court highlighted the provisions allowing retirement after completion of 20 years of service, the requirement for acceptance by the appointing authority, and the implications of non-communication of acceptance within the notice period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought voluntary retirement under Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, but the request was not disposed of by the Government. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, stating that no fresh application can be filed during the pendency of the initial application. The court considered whether the deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement request was permissible under FR 56(k) and Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was deemed to be voluntarily retired from service with effect from 20.02.2007, as the application seeking voluntary retirement was not rejected or accepted within the notice period. The court directed the respondents to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement request, the requirement for acceptance by the appointing authority, and the implications of non-communication of acceptance within the notice period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR 56(k) to establish the deemed acceptance of voluntary retirement request and the entitlement of the petitioner to retire after the expiry of the notice period.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner within a specified period.
N. Paulvasanthakumar, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the order of the Tribunal made in O.A.No.22 of 2008 dated 08.10.2009, wherein the prayer of the petitioner is to declare that he ceased to be in service on voluntary retirement from 21.02.2007 under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and FR 56(k); to quash the charge memo dated 10.12.2007 issued by the first respondent and for a direction to sanction pension, commutation of pension, service gratuity, leave encashment, GPF balances, Central Government Insurance amount etc., admissible to the petitioner under the relevant Service Rules.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a Senior Resident from 15.09.1981 in the JIPMER, Pondicherry and thereafter appointed as Assistant Professor of Psychiatry from 27.12.1984 in teaching sub-cadre of Central Health Service. The petitioner, then became the Associate Professor of Psychiatry with effect from 08.03.1989 and Professor of Psychiatry with effect from 14.01.1994. The petitioner had been the Head of the Department of Psychiatry in the JIPMER, Pondicherry from October, 1990.
3. The petitioner's Date of Birth being 17.04.1954, his normal date of superannuation is 30.04.2016. In August, 2006, on account of some compelling circumstances due to domestic problem, the petitioner decided to proceed on voluntary retirement and consequently, he had issued a notice on 28.08.2006 seeking voluntary retirement informing the first respondent that due to extraordinary family situation, he had decided to proceed on voluntary retirement under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) provided under Rule 48(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which enables a Government servant, who completed 20 years of service, to proceed on voluntary retirement after giving notice in writing for three months.
4. The third respondent also treated the said application dated 28.08.2006, as notice under Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which enables a Government servant to proceed on voluntary retirement after completing 20 years of service by giving not less than three months notice to the appointing authority. The third respondent forwarded the application to the second respondent stating that out of three faculty posts sanctioned for the Department of Psychiatry in the JIPMER, two posts were already vacant and it might not be possible to accept the request of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement and if his request is to be considered favourably, a suitable substitute has to be posted in the place of the petitioner and no order is passed by the third respondent till date.
5. As no order was passed by the first respondent, who is the competent authority, the petitioner again submitted a fresh application to the first respondent on 21.11.2006 under Rule 48(A) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR 56(k) giving three months notice seeking voluntary retirement after the expiry of three months and explaining why he is not able to shoulder the responsibility of running the Department alone, especially in the extraordinary family situation.
6. The three months notice period expired on 20.02.2007. The said application was also forwarded by the third respondent to the first respondent and the petitioner was not served with any reply from the respondents till 21.02.2007. The petitioner did not attend the Office thereafter as no rejection order was issued to the petitioner. The third respondent issued a Charge Memo dated 10.12.2007, as if the petitioner had not attended duties from 21.02.2007. The said Charge Memo was challenged with a consequential prayer as stated supra before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed.
7. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner's request seeking voluntary retirement under Rule FR 56(k) and 48(A) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
